TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petition No. IB-889(N.D.)/2018 titled as Naik Environmental Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs. India Bulls Construction Ltd., whereby the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application of the Appellant filed under Section 9 of the IBC. Parties are represented by their status in the company petition for the sake of convenience. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner/Appellant of the company petition placed 3 Purchase Orders and 2 Work Orders inter-alia for comprehensive maintenance, operation of the plant including the supply of consumables and chemicals and supply of materials for reinstatements, repairs, servicing of the sewage treatment plant, equipment of different capacities, operation and maintenance of STP's, ETC at project si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is further contended that the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that there is a running composite account between the parties and there is no differentiation between the work orders is wrong and perverse. 4. In Reply to the Appeal, the Corporate Debtor/Respondent submits that it had received four demand notices under Section 8 of the IBC even though there is a pre-existing dispute pending prior to the issuance of the demand notices. Respondent further submits that they are not liable to pay the Appellant anything under Work Order No. 3228001829, 3228002396, 3228001827, 3228108125, 3228002395 until the Petitioner successfully complied the terms and conditions of every purchase order and work order. 5. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3228001827 dated 21.12.2012 ii. P.O. No. 3228108125 dated 04.12.2013 iii. P.O. No. 3228002395 dated 13.03.2014 iv. W.O. No. 3228001829 dated 21.12.2012 v. W.O. No. 3228002396 dated 13.03.2014 9. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on the premise that there was a dispute about the commissioning of sewage treatment plant (STP) at Parel, Mumbai (Sky Forest Project), hence not maintainable. The Adjudicating Authority further observed that there was a running composite account between the parties, and there was no differentiation between different Work Orders issued between the parties. 10. It is pertinent to mention that separate demand notices under Section 8 were issued in respect of supplies of STP at Hyderabad and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand notice, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor has complained regarding deficiency of service in respect of only Work Order no-3228108736 and 3200100371, which relates to the 'STP' at Sky Forest Project. The Appellant contends that till date, no action under IBC is taken for realization of the outstanding dues relating to the Sky Forest Project, which emanates from the Work Order no. 3228108736, and 3200100371. 14. On perusal of the application filed under Section 9, it is clear that this Petition is not filed relating to the outstanding dues in connection with Work Order No. 3228108736, and 3200100371. Therefore, for the deficiency in services regarding the Sky Forest Project is not in question in this case. It is relevant to menti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the "existence" of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. 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 defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the second reply that: "You are well aware that your STP installed at our Sky Forest project has failed to function at its required capacity, and you have also failed to operate and repair it. From your notices, it appears that you want to pressurize us in expediting the payment under P.O. 3228108125 without commissioning and testing of STP at India Bulls Green Panvel Project as you fear that the same will not function similar to STP at Sky Forest Project. In view of the aforesaid, we hereby call upon you to withdraw all your notices and letters under reference in respect of Purchase Order No. 3228108125 dated 04.12.2013. You are further called upon to comply with terms of P.O. 3228108125 and refrain from demanding full payment until a....