TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was issued - There is nothing to show that there was any other reason why Section 9 Application was required to be rejected. The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority - The Respondent may, before Section 9 Application is admitted by the Adjudicating Authority, settle the dispute with the Appellant, if the Respondent so wants. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.162 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2020 - Justice A.I.S. Cheema, Member (Judicial) And Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar Rao, Shri Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Shri Raghav Kacker and Ms. Rajshree Jaiswal, Advocates For Respondent: Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Advocate ORDER This Appeal has been filed by Appellant claiming to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Appellant claims that the Respondent stopped production of IMFL and the arrangement came to be terminated in the month of November, 2012. According to the Appellant, the Respondent is liable to pay ₹ 47,57,800/- plus ₹ 16,77,827/- and is also liable to return the equipment supplied by the Appellant or in default, pay ₹ 30,00,000/- which is the written down value of High Speed Bottling Unit. The Appellant claims that the Section 9 Application was filed claiming total outstanding dues of ₹ 2,38,16,374/-. 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant states that this amount includes amount of interest which has been disputed by the Respondent as not part of Agreement but even if the portion of interest was to be exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. 4. Against this, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to letter sent by the Respondent on 15th April, 2014 (Annexure A9 - Page 121), and then another letter dated 19th November, 2015 (Page - 125), and then yet another letter was sent by the Respondent (Page - 126) on 6th July, 2017 and letter dated 14th February, 2018 (Page - 127) in which letters, the Respondent continuously acknowledged the amounts due even specifying the amount outstanding. The learned Counsel pointed out that within the period of limitation, the Respondent continuously issued such written acknowledgements and in fact, even after vague Reply dated 14th April, 2018 (to Section 8 Notice dated 5th April, 2018), th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the leaned Counsel for the Appellant, and the fact that the learned Counsel for the Respondent is unable to show us any document before the Notice under Section 8 was issued which would indicate that there was any dispute communicated by the Respondent to the Appellant, we find that the Adjudicating Authority erred in dismissing the Section 9 Application observing that it is deemed that there is dispute prior filing the instant petition . What was relevant was to see whether there was pre-existing dispute when Section 8 Notice was issued. 8. There is nothing to show that there was any other reason why Section 9 Application was required to be rejected 9. For the above reasons, we allow the Appeal. We set aside the Impugned Order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
