TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1956 as a Private Limited Company. 3. On 01.09.2016, the Operational Creditor started providing hospitality services to the Corporate Debtor at Dwarka Unit via Agreement dated 01.08.2016. 4. On 08.10.2016, being satisfied with the services of the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor approached once again to the Operational Creditor for the hospitality services to be provided at their Qutab Institutional Area Unit. Therefore, the Operational Creditor started providing services to the Corporate Debtor at Qutab unit via Agreement dated 12.10.2016. 5. In pursuant of the Order dated 12th October. 2016. the Operational Creditor after providing service to the Corporate Debtor raised the invoices on the various dates, which are mentioned at page 13 of the paper book. 6. After raising the invoices, the Operational Creditor has received Rs. 18,00,959/- against the invoices referred at page 12 which relates to Phase-1, Dwarka, New Delhi and Rs. 4,86,197/- against the invoices raised at page 13 of the paper book in respect of service provided at Qutab Unit and claimed that total of Rs. 1,35,54,011/- is outstanding due and since the said amount is not paid, therefore, there i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly. 10. The facts mentioned in the reply in short is that the applicant has failed to disclose that there is pre-existing pending dispute between the parties with regard to alleged sum payable to the applicant by the respondent's Company. Further, there is a series of correspondence exchanged between the representatives of both the parties pertaining to the applicant invoices and non-compliance with Labour Laws. 11. Further as per the terms of agreement, the service provider/applicant was responsible for complying with the requirements of various statutory provisions as applicable in respect of its employees/staff deputed at the respondent's hospital. 12. Further, as per the said agreement, respondents to ensure the compliance of the Labour Laws by the service provider and service provider would have to furnish the documents with every invoice in support of the same and that document consequently determine the amount of the monthly bills due to the service provider/applicant in consonance with the wages etc. paid by it to the staff deployed at the respondent's hospital. 13. Further as per the agreement, invoices were not liable to be cleared by the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he employees paid directly to them and Rs. 4,86.197/-against the invoices raised by the applicant and accordingly, applicant deducted such amount paid by the respondent from the alleged amount in a salary claimed by it and amended the instant application to revised the purported claim and on this ground alone, the claim of applicant is not liable to be accepted. 18. In support of the averments, the applicant also annexed the emails and the invoices against which the payments are made. 19. In pursuant to the reply filed by the Corporate Debtor, the applicant has also filed the rejoinder and the ground taken in the rejoinder is almost same as taken by the applicant in his application and he further, claimed that there is no violation of terms and condition of the agreement and he is making payment to the employees and also following the statutory legal obligation. It is also mentioned that Corporate Debtor release amount of Rs. 4.86,197/- directly to the employees under the direction of the Labour Commissioner. 20. The Operational Creditor also annexed the emails exchanged between the two and admits that in pursuant of the Labour Court Commissioner's Order, the payment w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r through various email exchanged, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. 28. He further submitted that the respondent through emails dated 24th may 2019 (annexure 5 page 38). 29th June, 2019, 27th April. 2019, 01st April 2019, 06th March, 2018, 24th January 2019. and 18th December 2018 (annexure 6 colly., page 40 and 630/2019 at page 33) directed the applicant to furnish all such documents showing compliance of various labour law. 29. He further submitted then that he communicated the deduction on account of repeated default on the part of applicant to raise legitimate invoices but these facts were suppressed by the applicant. Learned Counsel further submitted that the applicant while submitting its invoices with the respondent had taken an instance and claimed that it had released cash payment to the employees but this claim had been questioned and applicant had also been questioned by the respondent vide email dated 07th March. 2019 at page 36 of the reply to abstain from making such cash payment as the same is prohibited under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act. 30. He further, submitted that there had been serious deficiency of the service on the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Operational Creditor by which, he informed regarding the shortage of manpower. Apart from the aforesaid email dated 21st November 2018, there are other correspondence made through the email on 2nd November 2018, 1st November 2018, 31s1 October 2018, 21st October 2018 and on the various dates regarding the shortage of the staffs. 35. We. further find that at page 40 of the reply vide email dated 27th April, 2019. one Mr. Anand Kumar, executive of the Human Resources informed the Operational Creditor regarding the deficiency in the bill submitted by the Operational Creditor in respect of the bills of January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019. 36. At this juncture, we would like to refer this fact that the Petitioner has claimed the payment amount default in respect of bills submitted in the month of January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019. These bills have already been disputed by the respondent vide email dated 27th April. 2019 that has been communicated to the Operational Creditor that there is deficiency in the bill of the January 2019. February 2019 and March 2019, vide email date June. 2019. the deficiency in the bill of month of March 2019 was also communicated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he has received email dated 8th June. 2019, in relation to the demand notice dated 17th May, 2019 that he has not mentioned in the affidavit whether any dispute has been raised or not, whereas, from the perusal of the email dated 8th June, 2019 which is at page 33 of the application, we find that the respondent has mentioned in that email that there are pre-existing disputes with regard to the outstanding payment and same has been intimated to the Operational Creditor from time to time by the management of Corporate Debtor. 41. If we shall place reliance, this part of the contention of the email referred at page 33 of the application then we find that this fact has been corroborated by the email, which we have referred in the aforementioned para by which respondent communicated the Operational Creditor regarding the deficiency in the bills raised by the Operational Creditor for the month of September 2018, October 2018, November 2018, December 2018, January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019. 42. Now. question is whether this dispute has been raised within the period prescribed under Section 8(2) of the IBC, 2016 or not. In view of Section 8(2) of IBC, 2016, the Corporate De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Hindustan Steel works Construction Limited Vs. Commissioner of Labour and Others. Since both the parties placed reliance on this decision, therefore, on the basis of this decision, this Adjudicating Authority finds that there is no dispute that principal employer i.e. the respondents are liable to pay the amount and the principal employer i.e. respondent is entitled to recover that amount paid to the workmen of the contractor. Here, in the case in hand, it is admitted by the Operational Creditor that some amount was directly paid to the employees by the respondent. Therefore, in our opinion, on the basis of the decision upon which both the parties placed reliance, it cannot be said that since there is a labour dispute and the matter is pending before the Labour Commissioner regarding the payment of the amount, therefore, that does not come under the purview of the dispute as under Section 8 and 9 of the IBC, 2016, rather, we are of the considered view that in view of the discussions made above, it can be safely said that the Corporate Debtor has raised the dispute, which is corroborated by the email exchanged between the two. prior to the delivery of the demand notice. 4....