TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceeding like one under IBC and even if the Appellant had not appeared, it was apparent from the application under Section 9 filed itself that there was pre-existing dispute. The Adjudicating Authority referred to the averments made by the Operational Creditor in Para- 2 of its Order and the averments themselves show there were incomplete works and Corporate Debtor had terminated Work Order. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Rejoinder and trail of e-mails dated 27.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 30.09.2016, 04.10.2016, 14.10.2016, 19.10.2016, 23.10.2016, 26.10.2016 09.11.2016. sent by Appellant to Corporate Debtor which show that there were disputes regarding workmanship and time factor and the Learned Counsel for Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Jharkhand and Jharkhand Agency. The Operational Creditor claimed that as per meeting dated 13th July, 2016 with Directors of Corporate Debtor the Operational Creditor Agreement was to be executed. The Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor issued Work/Purchase Order, but avoided entering into agreement. The Operational Creditor claimed that it had completed approximately 90% work as on 30th September, 2016 at Ramgarh and Khunti sites and 65-70% of other locations. The Corporate Debtor never raised issue of deficiency of work and material. The Operational Creditor attached copies of trail of e-mails at Annexure-9 before the Adjudicating Authority and stated that the Corporate Debtor sent e-mail on 17th November, 2016 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the effect that he had obtained information from India post website that notice was not served on the Corporate Debtor with an endorsement Left without instructions . The Order mentioned that notice issued through the e-mail to Corporate Debtor was served and therefore, proper service of Corporate Debtor was there. Counsel for Appellant states that no such e-mails was received. 5. We find that the Appellant had admittedly sent reply to Section 8 notice. Copy of the said reply is at Annexure A-8 . It referred to be Work Order which was issued and the deficiencies and mentioned in Para-14 of the Reply Notice as under:- It is submitted that your Client has not complied with any of the above terms and conditions. Your Client has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of time beyond the dead line of 8th October 2016 to complete agreed locations, Rajkumar Brothers has missed the timelines and there is no response even after repeated follow ups. Rajkumar Brothers has not even completed one location(KHUNTI) as agreed even after giving ample time with regular warnings. Rajkumar Brothers also failed to provide Bank Guarantee as agreed in the terms of the work order. The project is crucial to Amilionn, Amilionn has no other option than to terminate the Work Order. Through this letter, we inform you that Rajkumar Brothers work order issued by Amilionn stands cancelled. Thanks Regards Ram Reddy 7. Adjudicating Authority did not go into the contents. The Learned Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
