TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor was aware regarding the dispute relating to sub-contract and pleaded before the Adjudicating Authority that it was with good intention to get the work completed, that the Operational Creditor had sub-contracted work. Whether or not Operational Creditor could sub-contract was issue for appropriate Court to decide. Nature of Proceedings under Section 9 of IBC are summary disputed questions of facts already raised before Notice under Section 8 of IBC, cannot be investigated. Thus, there was a pre-existing dispute in this matter when Demand Notice under Section 8 was issued - application cannot be admitted. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 213 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2020 - [Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial) And [Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. The Operational Creditor claimed that against the work done the amount outstanding was ₹ 1,07,55,942/- plus interest. The amount was due as the Operational Debt was not paid, and the Operational Creditor sent Demand Notice under Section 8 of I.B.C. on 14th January, 2019 (as at page 120 of the Appeal Paper Book). As the amount was still not paid, the Application under Section 9 came to be filed. 5. The Impugned Order shows that the Adjudicating Authority heard the Parties and admitted the Application. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant is claiming that before Demand Notice dated 14th January, 2019 was sent, the Operational Creditor had sent Notice dated 05th December, 2018 to the Corporate Debtor copy of which is fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o M/s Adstee Construction Company due to which the project was unnecessarily delayed, and due to no construction activity at site the bookings were stopped, due to which my client suffered a loss of approximately ₹ 2 cr. 4. As per the registration certificate, UP RERA has instructed my client to complete the project by March 2020. As your client has not done the construction work in time, because of that it is impossible to complete the project by March 2020 as per UP RERA. As per UP RERA if the project is not completed in the stipulated time we are liable for Monetary Fine. Therefore, whatever fine will be imposed by UP RERA will be the responsibility and recovered from your client. 8. It is argued by the Learned Counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the aforesaid findings, it is clear that claim means a right to payment even if it is disputed. Therefore, merely the Corporate Debtor has disputed the claim by showing that there is certain counter claim, it cannot be held that there is pre-existence of dispute, in absence of any evidence to suggest that dispute was raised prior to the issuance of demand notice under Section 8(1) or invoice. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Reply Notice sent by the Corporate Debtor raised various issues and the Adjudicating Authority referring to one argument regarding non-execution went on to make observations as above to say that the Application can be admitted even if the amount has been disputed, the Application ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the hearing on 22.08.2019, it was submitted by the Corporate Debtor that no work was conducted by the Operational Creditor. It was further submitted that the work was further assigned by the Corporate Debtor to the third party and was not as per the guidelines of RERA. 15. That on 20.09.2019, the Directors of the Corporate Debtor along with Sh. Mukesh Sharma, who had filed the measurement of the running bills were asked to present before this Bench on 25.09.2019 to verify as whether Sh. Mukesh Sharma has signed the measurement sheets or not. However, it was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor that the Operational Creditor had undertaken and carried out the construction work. 16. That on 25.09.2019, Sh. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when there were clear documents raising disputes, it was not appropriate for the Adjudicating Authority to enter into procedure in the nature of Trial of Civil Suit. It was a matter which would require adjudication before the appropriate Court. The Impugned Order itself shows that the Operational Creditor was aware regarding the dispute relating to sub-contract and pleaded before the Adjudicating Authority that it was with good intention to get the work completed, that the Operational Creditor had sub-contracted work. Whether or not Operational Creditor could sub-contract was issue for appropriate Court to decide. Nature of Proceedings under Section 9 of IBC are summary disputed questions of facts already raised before Notice under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
