9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1648 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyAdmission of the petition under I & B Code - initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent - continuing dispute - Whether there is an any dispute between the parties before filing petition filed under I & B Code 2016? - petition barred by limitation - Held that - It is a fact that the winding up petition filed before the High Court has been transferred to this Tribunal on its constitution and at present the same is proceeded with under the provisions of the I & B Code 2016. It is also on record that the Respondent has disputed the claim before the High Court. Since the petition has been transferred to this Tribunal on its constitution and since it is not abated the dispute raised by the Respondent is still continuing and it cannot be ignored for the reason that the present proceeding is being considered under the provisions of the I & B Code. Further it is also on record that the Applicant has submitted the final bill certificate to the Respondent in the month of February 2009 and the notice under section 434 of the Companies Act 1956 was issued to the Respondent only on 25.11.2013. It is also on record that the Respondent vide its letter dated 19.12.2013 has raised the issue of limitation and it was not disputed by the Applicant by placing any reply or any other material to show how the claim is within limitation. In view of this I conclude that there is dispute exists between the parties in relation to this claim and the petition is also barred by limitation. Therefore I answer the issues (i) and (ii) above in affirmative. Applicant has not made out any case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority under the provisions of I & B Code 2016. - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of a dispute between the parties before filing the petition under the I & B Code, 2016. 2. Whether the petition is barred by limitation. 3. Whether the Applicant has made out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority under the I & B Code, 2016. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Existence of a dispute between the parties before filing the petition under the I & B Code, 2016: The Petitioner, Shri Maruti Electrical Enterprises Limited, claimed that they were awarded an electrical contract by the Respondent, M/s. SAS Realtors Private Limited, and had completed the work to the satisfaction of the Respondent. The Petitioner submitted regular running bills and requested the Respondent to verify and certify the bills for payment. Despite several requests and notices, the Respondent failed to settle the outstanding dues. The Petitioner relied on judgments such as *Neelkanth Township and Constructions Private Limited vs. Urban Infrastructures Trustees Limited* and *Mobilix Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited* to support their submission that the limitations would not apply to the I & B Code and that the ingredients of a dispute must be reflected in the documents. Conversely, the Respondent contended that the petition was false and vexatious, arguing that the Petitioner failed to meet the project deadlines and the work was deficient. The Respondent highlighted that they had made suitable deductions due to the deficient work and delays. They consistently raised disputes regarding the existence of debt and the quality of services provided by the Petitioner. The Respondent relied on the judgment in *Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited* to argue that the dispute raised was bona fide and not illusory. 2. Whether the petition is barred by limitation: The Respondent argued that the debt was barred by limitation, as the Petitioner had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract, and the Respondent had communicated the unsatisfactory performance at various stages. The Respondent further submitted that the petition was transferred from the High Court to the NCLT, and the defense of limitation was still available. They relied on the judgment in *Neelkanth Township vs. Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited* to argue that limitation cannot be raised as a dispute under the I & B Code 2016 or the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. The Tribunal observed that the winding-up petition filed before the High Court had been transferred to the NCLT and that the Respondent had disputed the claim before the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had submitted the final bill certificate in February 2009, and the notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, was issued only on 25.11.2013. The Respondent raised the issue of limitation in their letter dated 19.12.2013, which was not disputed by the Applicant. 3. Whether the Applicant has made out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority under the I & B Code, 2016: The Tribunal concluded that a dispute existed between the parties regarding the claim and that the petition was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not made out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority under the I & B Code, 2016. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, with no order as to costs. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by Shri Maruti Electrical Enterprises Limited against M/s. SAS Realtors Private Limited, concluding that there was an existing dispute between the parties and that the petition was barred by limitation. The Applicant failed to make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority under the I & B Code, 2016.
|
