9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk Orders dated 12.07.2013, issued by the Respondent in respect of Kudgi, Super Thermal Power Station (STPP) at Kudgi Village, District: Bijapur, State: Karnataka. 2. The Facts of the case as pleaded by the Applicant in his application are briefly stated as under: i. The Corporate Debtor is engaged in providing services in mechanical, erection, piping, electrical, instrumentation, painting, refractory & insulation work for Refineries & other industrial plants. The Respondent is an Indian public sector undertaking, incorporated under Companies Act 1956 and which is engaged in generation of electricity and allied activities. ii. The Respondent issued two Work Orders dated 12.07.2013 for supply of electrical equipment and installation and erection works respectively to the Corporate Debtors. The Corporate Debtor duly completed the installation and erection works in January 2020 and work of supply of electrical equipment in July 2020, however despite completion of work, the Respondent has failed to release pending dues of Corporate Debtor being an amount of Rs. 22,72,62,756/. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent has itself admitted an amount of Rs. 12,34,01,237 (Rupees T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pletely illegal and blatant manner levying Liquidated Damages ("LD") on the Corporate Debtor of an amount of Rs. 5,74, 64, 442/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-Four Lakh Sixty-Four Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-Two Only) along with GST [i.e., Rs.1,03,43,560/- GST]. It is pertinent to mention that the abovesaid LD was imposed by the Respondent after a period of more than one year of completion of work by the Corporate Debtor. vi. The Respondent subsequently on 03.01.2022 & 18.01.2022, illegally encashed three Bank Guarantees submitted by Corporate Debtor for amount of Rs. 14,69,53,711/- (Rupees Fourteen Crores Sixty-Nine Lakh Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven Only) for alleged recovery of certain baseless amounts. vii. The Respondent issued an email dated 04.06.2022 to the Corporate Debtor regarding reconciliation of accounts along with the reconciliation sheet, whereby the Respondent has made several illegal deductions from the amounts due to Corporate Debtor, without any basis. All such deductions made by Respondent are completely wrongful, illegal and objected to by the Corporate Debtor. However, despite such deductions, the Respondent itself admitted an amount of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t come before this Tribunal to invoke its residuary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any and every dispute which neither relates to nor arises out of the Liquidation proceedings of the Corporate Debtor. ii. The Corporate Debtor has not completed the works of supply and erection as per the scope of the contract. It is submitted that as per the Minutes of Meeting dated 27.11.2019 held at NTPC Kudgi with the Corporate Debtor's representatives, the Respondent had informed that it will procure the material which the Corporate Debtor had not supplied at its risk and cost as these are required for completion of works. The Corporate Debtor had agreed to the same. Further, it is denied that the Respondent had admitted any amount of Rs.12,34,01,237/- as payable. This amount was only a reconciliation amount which the Respondent had asked the Corporate Debtor to check and sign. For any amount to be released, the Corporate Debtor has not submitted a "No Demand Certificate" which is a contractual obligation for smooth closing of contract. Hence, any claim of the Corporate Debtor/Liquidator that the Respondent is illegally withholding amounts is factually incorrect. iii. The Respondent, vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) cannot be invoked as the disputes between the parties are purely contractual in nature which cannot be resolved under the residuary jurisdiction of this Tribunal. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon Ramachandra D. Chaudhary v/s. Bansal Trading Co. & Ors. [2022 SCC Online NCLAT 360] whereby it has been held by the Hon'ble NCLAT that remedy for recovery of debts, disputed or not, cannot be determined in summary proceedings and the Code does not contemplate adjudication of any such nature. It was further held in this very case that any steps taken u/s 60(5) of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority would tantamount to bypassing/short-circuiting the judicial proceedings. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties and after going through the records, we are of the considered view that the Respondent has candidly and unequivocally admitted in the email dated 04.06.2022 its liability to pay a sum of INR 12,36,28,455/- to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, there is not even a semblance of dispute so far as this amount is concerned. In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that one of the important obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
