2017 (4) TMI 1510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be an 'Operational Creditor' and has named the respondent as 'Corporate Debtor. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the application are that the Applicant was engaged by the respondent for supply, erection, installation and commissioning of wet scrubber system at the respondent's float glass manufacturing facility at Roorkee, as per work order bearing number GPGIL/ 14-15/SCRUBBER dated 25.09.2014, for a total consideration of INR 57,00,000 (Rupees Fifty-Seven lakhs only). On 29.10.2014, during the erection of equipment at the site, it was also agreed by the respondent that for commissioning of equipment, certain additional equipments would also be required for which extra ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6.12.2014; d) INR 15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) on 12.02.2015; e) INR 4,00,000 (Rupees Four Lakhs only) on 16.03.2015; and f) INR 1,78,200 (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Eight Thousand and Two Hundred only) on 16.04.2015. 3. The Applicant claims to have sent e-mails on 08.10.2015 and 17.11.2015 to the respondent to claim the arrears of amount payable on account of supply, installation/ erection of the additional equipment. 4. The respondent served upon the Applicant a notice through their counsel and claims to have suffered losses on account of nonsupply / sub-standard supply of material and delay in completion of work. The aforesaid notice was duly replied by the Applicant on 12.01.2016 specifically denying the allegations and ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In that regard, a notice was issued to the Applicant on the basis of arbitration clause 19 of the work order on 02.04.2017. Even a complaint was made in May 2015 which has been dismissed. Against the order of the Magistrate, a Revision Petition is pending. Accordingly, it has been urged that Application under Section 9 of the Code is not maintainable as the Applicant has not been able to complete its work as per the provisions of the work order. The respondent has already made payment of Rs. 49,28,200 lakhs out of the total work order of Rs. 57 lakhs. The rest of the payment could not be made as the Applicant has failed to perform its part of the contract. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. It has come on record that in....