TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Respondent rejecting the Appellant's claim as Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor and direct the Respondent to admit the Appellant's claim; and (ii) Pass such further and/or other orders as in the facts and circumstances of this application may be deemed necessary; 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that on 24.12.2010 the Appellant entered into Purchase Order No. SAP/0007/2009/SEIPL issued by the Corporate Debtor viz. M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited, which was effective from 11.12.2009 pursuant to which the Appellant was required to supply a hydrogen recycle gas compressor package to the Corporate Debtor for the Diesel Hydro Desulphurization Unit (DHU) for the Cuddalore Refinery Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to act on behalf of them in relation to the project. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that they received payment of 35% of the Purchase Price as per the first three payment scheduled as described hereunder; (i) Rs. 1,29,50,000/- by NEFT payment on 31.03.2010; (ii) Rs. 2,59,00,000/- by NEFT payment on 01.12.2010; (iii) Rs. 5,18,00,000/- by NEFT payment on 15.03.2011; 5. Further, it was submitted that the Appellant has completed fabrication of gas compressor, turbine and several other items as per its scope of work and was ready to dispatch the goods as per the Billing Schedule. It was also submitted that the gas compressor package which was manufactured by the Appellant was a customized pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the material is ready for dispatch and requested the Corporate Debtor to open for the Letter of Creditor, however all those requests by the Appellant remained to be futile. 8. Thereafter, it is seen that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor viz. M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited (NOCL) was initiated by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2017 in TCP/10/IB/2017 and one Mr. V. Nagarajan was appointed as the "Interim Resolution Professional" (IRP) and subsequently Mr. S. Rajendran was appointed as the "Resolution Professional" (RP) of the Corporate Debtor with effect from 22.09.2017. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that they have filed the claim before the RP on 20.01.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... challenging such rejection made by the Respondent. 9. The Respondent has filed counter and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that even as per the documents submitted by the Appellant, the total value of the Purchase order is Rs. 25.90 Crore and the Respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 9.06 Crore to the Appellant and it was submitted that the Appellant was required to deliver the entire goods as per the purchase order on or before 10.06.2011; however they had failed to do so. Further, it was submitted that in spite of collecting the advance amount for the total value of the purchase order, the Appellant themselves have raised invoice only for a value of Rs. 18.07 Crore as against the total purchase order value of Rs. 25.90 Cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant is liable to repay the advance amount of Rs. 9.06 Crore which is paid to the Appellant by the Corporate Debtor with atleast 18% interest till the date of payment. Under such circumstances, the Respondent has sought for the dismissal of the present Appeal. 12. The Appellant has filed rejoinder and it was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Respondent has raised various grounds in their counter for the first time which was not stated at the time of rejection of the claim on 28.08.2020 and thus the Respondent cannot seek to justify its rejection on the Appellant's claim for entirely new reasons. Thus, the Appellant in their rejoinder has so....