Case Law Details
Krishna Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi)
Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that in fact the Respondent is a defaulting company. They have not made payment on the due dates since it was provided that within 15 days all bills shall be paid. There was delay in making payment and certain payment were made beyond 15 days. It is submitted, with regard to the emails regarding slow progress of work it was the Respondent who themselves have to be blamed and not the contractor. The emails which were sent by the Corporate Debtor cannot be said to be reason for rejecting the application on the ground that there is pre-existing dispute.
We have extracted the findings of the Adjudicating Authority where the Adjudicating Authority has referred to the email dated 26.04.2018 and 25.05.2018 where deficiency in the work was pointed out and further email dated 18.01.2019 has been referred to for incomplete rectification work and deficiency of work. All these email correspondences are prior to Section 8 notice dated 13.07.20 19. The contractual dispute between the parties if arise, during the contract provisions are made in all contracts for resolution of such. The dispute between the parties are not supposed to be decided, examined and adjudicated in IBC proceeding. Only question to be looked in Section 9 Application is as to whether the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor opposing claim of the Operational Creditor is not a moonshine defense. We have looked into the emails which were sent by the Corporate Debtor and which are part of the Appeal Paper Book. We are of the view that the issues raised in these emails are not moonshine defense, the issues regarding quality of work were raised much prior to the issuance of Section 8 notice.
We, thus, are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting Section 9 application filed by the Appellant. We, however, make it clear that it is always open for the Appellant to take such remedy as permissible in law.
Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the emails sent by the Appellant – Operational Creditor has not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
