9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, the petitioner claims to be an Operational Creditor having been awarded an order for carrying out civil work including plumping, electrical, fire fighting work and other renovations at the respondent's premises to be run as a restaurant under the name and style of Chilis, a premises taken on lease by the Corporate Debtor on the 3rd Floor in the DLF Mall of India, NOIDA. The value of the work awarded was Rs. 95 lakhs. All designs and other specifications were mentioned in the tender document and subject to the acceptance of the terms and conditions, the said contract was given to the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner/Operational Creditor that the value of work done increased to Rs. 1,44,86,564/-, due to changes in the spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Operational Creditor's notice under Section 8 of the Code, nor appeared before the Tribunal despite intimation of the motion and listing of the petition. However, this Bench deemed it fit and expedient to direct fresh notice to be served on the Corporate Debtor, pursuant to which they were represented in court, initially by their manager/representative, and later by their counsel. 5. In the reply filed by the Corporate debtor they have pointed out and relied upon emails to show that there was dissatisfaction over the work done. Ld. Counsel for the corporate debtor has submitted the following points in resisting the prayer made for by the operational creditor:- (i) The entire contract for the job work assigned was for a sum of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in a position to commence their business. (iv) As per the agreement, the delay in execution invited a liquidated damage which was capped at 10% of the contractual amount. Failure to execute the job work on time resulted in losses to them and they were entitled to adjust this amount against the final bill. 6. Attention of this Bench is further drawn to various emails, including those dated 04.05.2016 and 17.05.2017, whereby the corporate debtor had asked the operational creditor to remove these snags. As these were not removed, the Corporate Debtor submits that they were constrained to engage the services of a third party, so as to minimize their losses. 7. On appraisal of the arguments advanced before this bench we find that the disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
