TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kerala and therefore, the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 2. The Corporate debtor placed the work order to Operational Creditor on 28.02.2014 for internal civil & Interior works including MEP for first floor, second floor - Cath Lab and Renal lab ICCU. The total work order value was Rs. 3,98,64,277.11 (Rupees Three Crores Ninety-Eight Lakhs Sixty-Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy-Seven and Eleven Paise Only) plus applicable taxes. Thereafter, on 13.08.2014 second work order was placed for special modification work for installing new CT and MRI machines and its allied services at Radiology department in the basement floor. The total work order amount was Rs. 77,31,167.80 (Rupees Seventy-Seven Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Seven and Eighty Paise only) plus work contract tax and service tax. Following that a third work order was placed by the Corporate Debtor on 18.10.2014 to the Operational Creditor with regard to additional work over HT side to augment for CT and MRI and Basement floor. The total work order value was Rs. 8,55,287.50 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Seven and Fifty paise only) plu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or as demanded by Operational Creditor in the E-mail communication dated 02.11.2018. However, the Operational Creditor has not agreed with the stand taken by the Corporate Debtor that no such amount is due for payment. 6. The Operational Creditor clearly opposed the averments made by the corporate debtor in the reply to demand notice. The Operational Creditor further submitted that the amount claimed as a part of the demand notice is in accordance with the sanctioned amount as shown in various work orders. With regard to the additional work order the Operational Creditor is relied on Annexure 11 (7)wherein the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the amount due. The operational Creditor has not raised any consultancy fee as a part of its claim. The Corporate Debtor is evading the liability to clear the outstanding dues by referring to an amount that does not actually form part of the claim raised by the Operational Creditor. 7. Hence under these circumstances the Operational Creditor filed an application before the National Company Law Tribunal, under Section 9 to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for recovery of Rs. 93,24,741.46 (Rupees Ninety-Three Lakhs Twenty-Four....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Corporate Debtor for the additional work carried out by them. However, the Corporate Debtor sanctioned and approved and also made partial payments towards the dues including the additional work carried out by the Operational Creditor. 12. The Corporate Debtor also filed a Reply Affidavit stating that the application is to be dismissed, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transmission Corpn. of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. Equipment Conductors & Cables Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 375/150 SCL 447 (SC) as there is a pre-existing dispute in this matter. 13. The Corporate Debtor pin points the letter dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure B-1 attached with the Rejoinder filed by the Operational Creditor) states that dispute is existing between parties. Again, stated that the total amount of debt shown as (Rs. 93,24,741.46/-) and in the Rejoinder it is stated that the pending amount due is (Rs. 84,05,905/-) this itself clears that the Operational Creditor approached this tribunal with mala fide intentions. FINDINGS: - 14. In view of the submissions of both sides, we have thoroughly perused whole case records filed by the Operational Creditor (Cuboid Infrastructure Ltd.) and Corporate Debtor (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.(See Supra) is not strictly applicable. In the said case, there was a pre-existing dispute even before the demand notice issued by the Operational Creditor. We therefore of the view that facts of both the cases are vastly different and we cannot apply the decision in the above case in the instant matter. 20. Moreover, the corporate debtor other than simply making submission that "statement showing the pending & final amount due by both the parties relied upon by the Operational Creditor, is a fraudulent one", could not produce any documents or correspondence to prove that the sign off statement is not issued from their office. This bench cannot go with mere statements made by parties but decide only based on the record before us. Therefore, we have no choice to except to believe in what was submitted to us. 21. The amount of debt claimed is Rs. 93,24,741.46/- (Rupees Ninety-three Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-One and forty-six paisa only) which exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the requirement under section 4 of the I & B Code 2016 and the application is within the purview of Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016. ORDER 22. In....