TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner having been awarded a work contract from the Respondent/Corporate Debtor, had raised running bills in the course of executing the work order. They have now filed the present petition as Financial Creditors on account of the outstanding debt to be recovered from the Corporate Debtor. 2. As per averments made in the petition, the Financial Creditor had executed piling work at the Corporate Debtor's project carried out under the name and style 'Beethoven's 8' in Sector 107 Gurgaon. In terms of the said work order, the Corporate debtor was under an obligation to release 70% of the payment within 7 days of approval of the RA bill statement and the balance 30% within 12 days thereafter. The Financial Creditor carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it was for the first time a dispute was raised in a bid to create a sham defence attempting to delay or defeat the Financial Creditors entitlement. The Financial Creditor subsequently issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code before initiating the present proceedings. 4. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the respondents put in appearance and raised various objections. Their contention was that proceedings have not been instituted by a duly authorised person as the proper Board Resolution was not on record. Objection was taken to the Resolution on record being pre-notification of the Act, though it duly authorized its employee to institute legal proceedings and sign and verify pleadings amongst other acts. In view of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also the case that more than 70% remittance amounting to Rs. 5 crores has already been made to the Financial Creditor and only a fractional amount of the contract remains unpaid since the work has not been completed. Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has argued that on the contrary they have to recover money from the Financial Creditor for the incomplete work, as over and above payments made to them, a huge amount was also spent on the material which was exclusively provided by them. 6. In rejoinder to the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor has submitted that the testing of the piling work could not be carried out on account of the Corporate Debtor's own default as the same was dependant on work to be executed by ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the notice under Section 433 of the Companies Act, there was not even a whisper of dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor to substantiate their arguments that the work was incomplete or that they had sent any communication that the testing of the piling should be carried out. The Financial Creditor on the other hand has relied upon his various mails and the invoices raised from time-to-time. 9. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor that prior to the notice under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, no dispute was raised remains unrebutted. Under such circumstances, the arguments of the Financial Creditor merit consideration that the alleged disputes were baseless, vexatious and frivolous, set up only with an....