TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporate Debtor opposing claim of the Operational Creditor is not a moonshine defense. We have looked into the emails which were sent by the Corporate Debtor and which are part of the Appeal Paper Book. We are of the view that the issues raised in these emails are not moonshine defense, the issues regarding quality of work were raised much prior to the issuance of Section 8 notice. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting Section 9 application filed by the Appellant - The Adjudicating Authority had to examine the defence of the Corporate Debtor to find out if there is pre-existing dispute. If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied on those emails, it is not necessary to refer to explanations given by the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work. There has been several correspondences between the parties and payments were also made from time to time. However, when the Appellant could not receive the payment as per the contract he gave a notice under Section 8 of the I B Code on 13.07.2019 and thereafter filed the application under Section 9 for claiming a debt of Rs.1.39 Crores. The Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and rejected the application observing that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties. In Para 12 and 13 the Adjudicating Authority held: 12. In this context it is pertinent to mention that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor can categorically be divided into three parameters; (i) First, was with respect to the Deficiency in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is submitted, with regard to the emails regarding slow progress of work it was the Respondent who themselves have to be blamed and not the contractor. The emails which were sent by the Corporate Debtor cannot be said to be reason for rejecting the application on the ground that there is pre-existing dispute. 5. We have extracted the findings of the Adjudicating Authority where the Adjudicating Authority has referred to the email dated 26.04.2018 and 25.05.2018 where deficiency in the work was pointed out and further email dated 18.01.2019 has been referred to for incomplete rectification work and deficiency of work. All these email correspondences are prior to Section 8 notice dated 13.07.2019. The contractual dispute between the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
