TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,876.57/- payable out of a total billing of Rs. 2,11,89,531.55/- from the Corporate Debtor (CD) as an operational debt. It is averred in Part IV of the petition that debt arose due to supply of aluminum work at the project site of the CD being UIDAI, Headquarter Building, Bangla Saheb, Delhi, based on work order dated 6.5.2016 issued and the transactions which were done pursuant thereto between the period 10.10.2016 to 21.6.2017. During the transaction period as stated above, the payments it is averred became due in view of supply of aluminum parts /glass parts relating to procurement of material at site. Even though partial payment to the extent of Rs. 1,33,67,127/- has been received by the Operational Creditor from the CD between 26.9.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of time has evolved and constructed highly advanced and specialized Government facilities having strategic importance to the nation's defence development. It is averred in the reply that it is a going concern employing nearly 450 employees and for the year ended 31.3.2017 made a turn over of Rs. 412.55 crores and a profit after tax of Rs. 13.91 crores. 3. In relation to the project of UIDAI, Engineers India Limited (EIL) was appointed by UIDAI for providing engineering and related services and appointed it as its project consultant after a detailed process awarded the contract to the CD in relation to project as described in the above paragraph with the total contract cost of Rs. 75,91,41,063/- and that the work commenced in relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue notice dated 25.4.2018 seeking for the liquidated damages to the extent of Rs. 18,86,910/-.However, the notice sent by post to the OC by the CD seeking for damages it is contended had been returned on 3.5.2018 with the remarks 'door locked'. When it was sent again on 4.5.2018, the said notice was also returned on 9.5.2018 with the similar endorsement. It is also brought to the notice of this Tribunal in the reply of the CD that vide communication dated 17.10.2017 that on its own account, the CD had supplied several items directly at the site and had also paid to the contractors directly in relation to the said supplies. Further, it is also contended in the reply that none of the works as pointed out vide communication dated 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iquidated damages is based on cooked up facts for raising of dispute. It is also brought to the notice of this Tribunal in the rejoinder that based on the instructions of CD on 11.8.2017 the work was stopped on 22.8.2017 and that it is also evidenced that in view of the instruction for stoppage of work by the CD to the OC the work was stopped and that the materials were removed from the project site and further instructions in this regard were awaited from the CD. It is also brought to the notice of this Tribunal in the rejoinder, no formal termination letter of the Work Oder dated 6.5.2016 was issued by the CD prior to engaging another contractor, namely, M/s KSP Infrabuild on 15.5.2018 for the same work. It is also mentioned that without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parties. Running bills/invoices which has been raised by OC against the CD has been annexed as Annexure-II-E. 7. It is seen from the e-mail which has been sent from the CD to the OC as enclosed in the petition as Annexure-II-E(colly) which is dated 17.10.2017, the CD has specifically stated that it has supplied many items and that it had paid to the contractor of the OC as well as non-completion of work and part rates to be adopted. Since both the e-mails are short, the same is reproduced as below; On Mon. Oct. 16, 2017 at 3.11 PM, JATIN AGARWAL [email protected]: Dear Sir, As per the joint measurement, we accept the following fixed quantities of work. 1. DGU Glass-620.03 sqm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....denied by the reply e-mail dated 17.10.2017. Thus, it is seen that as early as October, 2017 which is much prior to the issue of Section 8 notice being the notice of demand by the OC to the CD dated 22.1.2018, there has been a pre-existing dispute as between the parties. Further it is also alleged by CD that the work awarded in relation to the work order has not been completed which had forced it to award the balance work to another contractor. The quantum of work which had been completed and the amount payable thereon, if any cannot be decided in a summary manner by this Tribunal. This Tribunal is hence not required to look beyond as while considering the petition filed under Section 9 of IBC,2016 where the documents as filed by the petiti....