2017 (10) TMI 1284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d through its Director Shri Sarish Saxena, duly authorized under the Board Resolution dated 25.08.2017. 2. The facts of the case are that the Operational Creditor is engaged in the business of interior designing and finishing of Commercial and Corporate Offices. In the month of April 2015, they were approached by the Respondent company to get the interior fit outs, firefighting and plumbing work done at their new Corporate office situated at Aerocity, Mahipalpur, New Delhi. The said premises was taken on lease in which the office of the Corporate Debtor had to shift. After a letter of intent was issued by the Corporate Debtor and on acceptance of the terms and conditions, the Operational Creditor undertook to execute the contract for Rs. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de to portray a frivolous defence, merely to resist the present proceedings. 5. The petition is annexed along with the relevant documents including the notice under Section 8 and copies of the invoices Due compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 9(3)(b) & (c) of the Code have been made. 6. The Respondent on being served has put in appearance and filed its reply. It is contended on their behalf that the petitioner has suppressed various existing disputes in respect of the work executed which has caused the Corporate Debtor untold harassment and extra expenses arising not only in respect of dissatisfactory work done, but also on account of delay in execution within the time agreed upon under the contract. Ld. Counsel appearing for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ongst many others. It is also stated that the Operational Creditor did not finish several items and abandoned the work which necessitated getting it completed through third party contractors. It is also repudiated that the work of the Operational Creditor had been certified as being satisfactory and the bills approved by their architect. Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submits that their architect had merely certified the work done, which did not necessarily include the work done by the Operational Creditor as many of the items had to be executed independently through other workers. A letter dated 11th March, 2016 by Mr. Zafar Chaudhary, Architect of the Corporate Debtor, is as below:-   "HABITAT ARCHITECTS   Date: 11th M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bitat Architects" 7. It is submitted by the Corporate Debtor that the agreement executed between the parties specifically provided for damages on account of delay in completion of the work and therefore they seek to recover the same from the petitioner. This had been duly conveyed to the Operational Creditor. 8. In addition to the dispute with respect to the quality of services rendered, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor also disputes the authorisation in favour of the Director, Mr. Sarish Saxena to institute the present proceedings as the resolution does not specifically authorise the initiate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Code. It is argued that the said Resolution being devoid of the mandatory requirements, vitiates the fi....