2020 (8) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Siddharth Acharya, Advocate for R-2. JUDGMENT Heard Learned Counsel for both sides. Respondent No. -1 'Operational Creditor' filed an application Before Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Hyderabad) under Section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short IBC) against M/s Amilionn Technologies Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor) claiming that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment of Rs. 2,30,62,247.90/-. The 'Operational Creditor' claimed that the Operational Creditor had supplied goods and services to the Corporate Debtor from July, 2016 till first week of November, 2016 based on Master Services Agreement entered into and executed between Revenue, Registration and Land Records Department, Government of Jharkhand and Jharkhan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uted operational debt. And thus Adjudicating Authority admitted application under Section 9 of IBC. 3. The Appellant Harish Amilineni, Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor has filed Appeal pointing out various documents to show that there were deficiencies in service including delays and because of that the Work Order was terminated and that Adjudicating Authority did not give proper opportunity to the Appellant to defend the action. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred 'Annexure- A 12' which is a copy of proceeding dated 23rd December, 2019 before the Adjudicating Authority and referring to the same the Counsel points out that the document shows that the Operational Creditor had filed Memo to the effect that he had obtain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proceeding with an important proceeding like one under IBC and even if the Appellant had not appeared, it was apparent from the application under Section 9 filed itself that there was pre-existing dispute. The Adjudicating Authority referred to the averments made by the Operational Creditor in Para- 2 of its Order and the averments themselves show there were incomplete works and Corporate Debtor had terminated Work Order. The Appellant has shown e-mail dated 17th November, 2016 which was admittedly sent by the Corporate Debtor terminating the Work Order. The copy of the same is at Page- 55 of the Rejoinder which reads as under : "....... Dear VK Singh, This is to inform you that after giving ample of time beyond the dead line of 8th Oc....