TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;). 2. The Applicant, the Operational Creditor, is a company incorporated on 26-8-2010, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN No. U70109DL2010PTC207549, having its registered office at B- 64, Chattarpur Enclave Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074. 3. The Respondent, the Corporate Debtor, is a company incorporated on 25-11-1991 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN No. U74899DL1991PTC046514, having its registered office at G- 7, Ashok Plaza, Building 12 A/14, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110006. The Authorised Share Capital of the respondent company is Rs. 50,00,000/- and Paid Up Share Capital of the company is Rs. 50,00,000/- as per Master Data of the company. 4. It is the case of the applicant, that the Corporate Debtor vide agreement dated 18-1-2013 awarded work contract to the Operational Creditor for carrying out 'civil work' for construction of a 'proposed office complex' at Plot No. 4, Sector 44, Gurugram. Subsequently, vide Agreements dated 21-12-2013 the Corporate Debtor also awarded Plumbing Work, Fire Fighting Installation Work and Electrical Work, respectively, to the Applicant. The Applicant duly carried out the Civil Work, Plumb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RP. 10. The Applicant has stated that total debt due and payable is Rs. 4,61,00,707/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixty One Lakhs Seven Hundred Seven). The date on which the debt became due as claimed by the Applicant is 28-6-2016. 11. Hence, the application under section 9 of the IBC, 2016 was filed by the applicant to initiate CIRP. The Applicant has also filed affidavit of service wherein he states that the Respondent has been served dasti on 7-7-2018 and through speed post on 22-6-2018 on both the addresses of the Corporate Debtor. The relevant documents in this regard have also been annexed along with the affidavit. 12. After the service of said notice, the Respondents have caused appearance in the matter and have filed their reply. In its reply to the present section 9 application, the Respondent states that, the Respondent vide an agreement dated January 18, 2013, commencing on January 15, 2013 awarded a works contract to the Applicant for carrying out 'civil work' for construction of office building at Plot No. 4, Sector 44, Gurugram, for a total contract value or Rs. 5,32,74,331/-. The project was to be completed within 9 months, ending on October 14, 2013. On December 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was stipulated in the civil work contract dated 18-1-2013, that the project was to be completed within 9 months ending on 14-10-2013, however, time was not a condition of essence in the contract and spilling over of the contract outside the stipulated due date of 14-10-2013 was accepted and the Corporate Debtor, is obligated to compensate the Applicant under the contract. Further, it is submitted that in so far as the contracts for firefighting, plumbing and electrical work at the project is concerned, the parties had not agreed to a firm date of 30-9-2014 for completion. It is accepted that detailed terms and conditions were not formulated for execution of firefighting, plumbing and electrical work, however, the parties had mutually agreed to apply the terms and conditions in the civil work contract dated 18-1-2018 to the extent applicable. The Applicant also states that, it performed the work and raised invoices after the completion date stipulated in the agreement and the Respondent has made some payments to the Applicant against the same. The Applicant also denies that the last bill provided by the Applicant was on 16-2-2015. it is stated that after 16-2-2015, the Applicant has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. There has been much cloud in the submission of the Respondent. Therefore, without any specific details of material particulars or evidence the fact of existence of a dispute cannot be sustained. 22. In Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 320/143 SCL 625, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pre-existing dispute is the dispute raised before demand notice or invoices was received by the 'Corporate Debtor'. Any subsequent dispute raised while replying to the demand notice under section 8(1) cannot be taken into consideration to hold that there is a pre-existing dispute. 23. In Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 292/144 SCL 37, Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "40................... Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defense which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not n....