TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of determination of this petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/OC submitted that the petitioner was awarded an electrical contract by the respondent for their residential apartment for a sum of Rs. 58, 81,825/-and prior to the awarding of the contract, the respondent had made it clear that the said quoted sum was only an approximate and that the petitioner would be paid for the actual area covered and quantity. Thereafter, a revised sum of Rs. 73, 60,110/- was arrived at and accepted & acknowledged by the respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner had been executing the work strictly in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said work and also to the satisfaction of the respondent. The petitioner had been submitting at each stage the electrical installations, mentioning the start and the end dates, floor-wise and the same was approved by the project-incharge of the respondent. The petitioner, while executing the work, had also been submitting regular running bill account to the respondent. The respondent asked the petitioner to complete upto the 8th floor, since the petitioner were short of funds and with regard to the remaini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017) - to show that the ingredients of a dispute must be available and such ingredients of dispute are to be reflected in the documents. In view of the above submissions, the learned Counsel for petitioner prayed for the admission of the petition under I & B Code and initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent Company/CD submitted that the instant petition is false, vexatious and not maintainable both in eyes of law or on facts. He submitted that the work awarded to the petitioner for electrical installations in the respondent's project ORCHARDS was due to be completed by July 2008 which the petitioner completely failed to meet the said deadline in spite of several letters sent by the respondent to the petitioner highlighting and reminding about the delayed progress in completing the electrical works. The respondent wrote a letter highlighting the deficiencies and irregularities and the petitioner was given one last chance to complete the works by 15.02.2009, failing which the respondent would take over and complete all the works on its own at the risk and cost of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only thereafter transferred to the NCLT, therefore the defence of limitation would still be available to the respondent. He further submitted that the respondent filed its counter affidavit before the High court raising the following grounds:- * That the debt is barred by limitation. * That the petitioner had failed to fulfil its obligations under the contract. * The respondent has in fact, spent out of its pocket to complete the work and had communicated the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner under the contract at various stages. * That the debt had not been admitted or acknowledged in any manner by the respondent. 8. The learned counsel also submitted that this adjudicating authority must consider the factual background of the dispute and the time at which it was raised in determining whether there was a dispute, hi support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the following judgements. (a) M/s. Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (Civil Appeal No. 9405/2017 -Supreme Court) - Referred to Paras 29, 33, 34 and 40 of the judgement which are reproduced below:- 29:Even otherwise, the word "and"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application. (b) Neelkanth Township vs. Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited (NCLAT) (Insolvency No. 45/2017) - To show submitting that limitation cannot be raised as a 'dispute' under IB Code 2016 or erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 and it is only applicable to the fresh proceedings. (c) P.K. Ores Private Limited vs. Tractors India Private Limited (NCLAT appeal Insolvency 56/2017) - To show that it was held that a dispute is existing about the quality of goods which is one of the clause of sub-section 6 of section 5 of IB Code 2016as the corporate debtor had already raised dispute about the quality of goods, further claiming damage for inferior quality of goods much prior to receipt of notice under section 8(1) of the IB Code 2016. In view of the above the learned Counsel for the Respondent prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. Heard. Perused the pleadings and document....