9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that a Work Order relating to electrical works was issued on 25.07.2021 by the Corporate Debtor- SNG Vardhman Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. in favour of operational creditor M/s Luxmi Electrical & Engineering Works - Respondent No. 1 (in short 'Luxmi Electrical') and the Scope of Work related to electrical fittings and fixtures in the SNG Plaza located at Greater Noida (UP). The Appellant has further stated that between 2012-2015, work on the project was at a standstill even though the Work Order gave a strict time period of Four months for completion of the work. He has further stated that the Operational Creditor claimed to have received an e-mail on 11.09.2015 from the Corporate Debtor to submit the final Bill of the work done to make the required payment. Thereafter, the Operational Creditor sent the final bill dated 24.03.2018 for an amount of Rs. 14,84,805.80 but the Appellant has stated that it was sent to a Third Party - Vardhman Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd. which is not the Corporate Debtor. 3. The Appellant has further stated that Demand Notice in Form-3 was sent to the Corporate Debtor vide letter dated 03.06.2019 but no invoices were attached therewith and upon request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld Pvt. Ltd.). He has further argued that similarly, e-mails dated 05.07.2012 and 11.09.2015 were also sent by Third Party- SNG Developers Ltd which is not Corporate Debtor and therefore, these cannot be considered as admission of the 'operational debt' by the Corporate Debtor. He has further submitted that even though the Work Order was issued on 25.07.2011 which had a time period for completion of work of four months, the Operational Creditor did not complete the work in time and submitted final bill by e-mail dated 24.03.2018 and therefore the said claim of 'Operational Debt' is hopelessly time barred. Therefore, the said order of the admission of Section 9 Application is bad in law and should be set aside. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has claimed that in the ledger account maintained by Corporate Debtor, an amount of Rs. 8,54,593/- has been shown in the balance sheet for the year ending 31.3.2016 of the Corporate Debtor having entries of Trade Payable to the operational trade for the years ending on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 which amounts to admission of the 'Operational Debt' on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016. Thus, from the last payment date of 4.1.2012 of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The Learned Counsel for the IRP (Respondent No. 2) has submitted that in accordance with the orders of this Tribunal, the Committee of Creditors has not been constituted and IRP shall abide by the order of this Tribunal in the Appeal. 10. The first issue for our consideration is whether the SNG Developers Ltd., which has sent certain e-mails and admitted to certain payments is a proxy of the Corporate Debtor. We consider the contention of the Appellant that SNG Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. (which is the Corporate Debtor and was earlier known as SNG Vardhman Techno Build Pvt. Ltd.) and SNG Developers Ltd. are two separate Corporate entities and therefore, whether any admission or communication sent by SNG Developers Ltd. can be considered as being sent by Corporate Debtor SNG Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. 11. With regard to the first issue we note the fact that the Work Order No. SNG/GM(C)/Plaza/WO/11/460 dated 25.07.2011 was issued by SNG Vardhman Techno Build Pvt. Ltd., which later on became SNG Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. We further note that e-mail dated 01.02.2012 (attached at pg. 138-139 of the Appeal Paper Book) was sent by Grover addressed to [email protected] along with many other addres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the work of SNG Plaza has been clearly mentioned, and significantly, in the e-mail dated 11.09.2015 which calls upon Luxmi Electricals to submit the final bill of the work, the work relates to the Work Order No. SNG/GM(C)/Plaza/WO/11/460 dated 25.07.2011, which is the Work Order given by the Corporate Debtor SNG Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. to the Luxmi Electricals. Further, the invoices in relation to the R.A. Bills all relate to the same Work Order and the name of the site is clearly mentioned as "Electrical Works at SNG Plaza at Gr. Noida". We, therefore, come to the safe and inescapable conclusion that the Work Order dated 25.07.2011 is the genesis of the RA bills and the related operational debt. 13. In so far as issue of limitation of the 'Operational Debt' is concerned, we note that the Work Order was issued on 25.07.2011. Thereafter certain payments were made by the Corporate Debtor in connection with the Running Account Bills and admittedly the last payment of Rs. 7 lakhs was made on 04.1.2012. The pending payment amounting to Rs. 8,54,593/- appears in the ledger statement issued by Corporate Debtor for the period 01.4.2011 to 30.09.2012. The same amount is also reflected i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction Company Ltd. vs. Hotel Poonja International Private Limited [(2021) 7 Supreme Court Cases 352], wherein it is held that reliance ought not to be placed on the balance-sheet which was not signed before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. It is noted that in the present case, the issue about the date of signing of the balance-sheet has not been raised by the Appellant. Moreover, the entry for year ending 31st March, 2015 in the section of 'Traded Payables' in favour of the operational creditor is corroborated by the balance of rs.8,54,593/- in the Ledger account Statement dated 1.10.2012. Therefore, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. case will not be applicable in the present case. 16. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tech Sharp Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanghvi Movers Limited [(2023) 2 Supreme court Cases 531], wherein it is held that while the claim may not be barred by limitation, but if the remedy for realization of the claim is barred by limitation, then the application for insolvency resolution may not be admitted. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
