9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent also highlighted 'existence of dispute' in regard to non-completion of the project within the time, and, the counter-claim as made by the respondent -'Corporate Debtor'. However, in absence of any document enclosed, showing dispute raised prior to issuance of Section 8 notice, such issue is not decided. Impugned order upheld though it is open to the appellant to move separate application in respect of separate work orders/ contracts, if not barred by limitation or delay and laches and if there is no dispute after following the procedure laid down under I B Code and Rules framed thereunder - there are no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed. - Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds, learned Adjudicating Authority while held that 'Operational Creditor' can initiate 'Arbitration proceedings', further held that the facts of the case do not warrant to invoke Section 9 of the I B Code. 5. Learned counsel for' the appellant submits that there is no dispute in existence. In such case, merely on the ground that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement or that the 'Corporate Debtor' is solvent, the application under Section 9 cannot be rejected, if otherwise complete. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent - Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. submitted that there are existing disputes and the application preferred by the appellant under Section 9 is not complete. According to him, claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly when three years prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing a suit for money claim has not been explained. However, we make it clear that we are not giving any specific finding on the question as to whether Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable or not in filing application for corporate resolution process under the I B Code, but certainly the claimant is required to explain the delay and laches. 9. The other claim relates to 'DS Toll Project' and 'NK Toll Projects', arising out of two different work orders. With regard to 'DS Toll Project', it is stated that till date entire amount of Rs. 28,31,430/- is due. The said amount has been added with Rs.2,84,52,328/- in respect of 'GF Toll Project', whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to time in respect to invoices of the creditors, in the process of which last payment was made on 26th September, 2013. Ever since, no further payment was made by the 'Corporate Debtor' towards alleged claimed amount of Rs.65,22,971/- which alleged to be outstanding. The learned Adjudicating Authority while noticed that cause of action took place on 26th September, 2013 and a reconciliation between the Creditor and Corporate Debtor made on 13th August, 2015 stating that outstanding amount due to the Creditor is Rs.25,03,900/- and beneath the said reconciliation statement, a note was entered by an employee of debtor company namely Ajay Sharma stated that the bills on hold come to Rs.40,19,071/- and bills were not brought forward in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
