2019 (9) TMI 840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. The present Appeal challenges the impugned order dated 20th December, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai rejecting the petition filed by Appellant under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 261 of 2019 2 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order ought to be set aside as it has erroneously held that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties. On the contrary, the facts demonstrate no such pre-existing dispute and the Respondent sought to raise a false bogey only after service of the demand notices dated 10th May, 2017 on them. 3. The case of the Appellant is that the Respondent issued various work orders to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iability nor did the Respondent raise any dispute on quality or quantity. 6. It is stated that as no payment was forthcoming 13 demand notices (Form 3) were issued to the Respondent on 10th May, 2017. Out of the total 13 demand notices issued, the present petition was filed for 6 demand notices for a total amount of Rs. 14,62,18,995/-. The said demand notices were duly received by the Respondent on 12th May, 2017. 7. It is alleged that as a counter blast, the Respondent after receipt of the demand notices on 12th May, 2017, with the sole intention to defeat and dislodge the legitimate claim of the Appellant, filed Summary Suit No. 297 of 2017 on 17th May, 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay and thereafter responded to the dem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g specifications, time frames, penalties and liquidated damages were applicable to the Sub Contracts. 11. It is also submitted that the Appellant while executing the works under the Sub-Contracts, consistently failed to maintain the desired progress of the works. The predominant reasons of its failures of the Appellant were (a) inadequate deployment of the resources, (b) unsatisfactory and faulty quality of the resources (i.e. equipment and manpower), (c) deployment of inappropriate and improper methods for execution of the work, and (d) abandoning the Sub Contract works. 12. It is submitted that as a result of the failures by the Appellant, the completion periods of the projects were prolonged, which attracted the imposition of the l....