2021 (7) TMI 1128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2016 (for brevity 'code') read with Rules 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') through and by Sh. Sarish Saxena, being the Director of M/s Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity 'Applicant') authorized vide board resolution dated 07.01.2019, which has been annexed with the application, with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against M/s Mayur Buildcon Private Limited (for brevity 'Corporate Debtor'). 2. The Applicant is company limited by shares incorporated on 19/10/1987 bearing CIN No. U74899DL1987PTC029548 under the provision of Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office at Kh. No. 1834, A-Block, Vasant Kunj Enclave, New Modern Publ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owing the total amount received and total outstanding has also been annexed. 6. The applicant submits through telephonic calls and emails to the higher management requested of the corporate debtor, requested to make payments. However, inspite of repeated requests and efforts of the applicant went unheard. The copies of emails sent by the applicant are annexed. The applicant further states that the corporate debtor has been continuously changing the management teams, which were looking after the completion of interior works by the applicant and also pointed delay tactics deployed by the corporate debtor in their email communication dated 23.04.2018. 7. The applicant states that interior had been duly completed and handed over to the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entions of the applicant stated the following: a) That the application is not maintainable on account of pre-existing dispute pending between the parties much prior to issuance of Section 8 of the code on grounds of deficiency in services and poor quality of work. That the corporate debtor has made a payment approximately of 85% of total amount believing promises of the applicant that the pending work will be completed. b) That the work order dated 30.06.2015 details the terms and conditions between the applicant and the corporate debtor. As per the Clause 1 of the scope of work, provided: "The scope of work shall be as per schedule of quantities....complete to the entire satisfaction of the client and his authorized represen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... provides that the claim must be in respect of provisions of goods and services, relying on "Mobilox Innovations Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited. In the present case the services were not provided, and whatever work was done, it was incomplete and on this ground the application must be rejected. e) Applicant has failed to appreciate that even prior to the last invoice dated 07.06.2018 raised, the corporate debtor in response to email dated 23.04.2018, had already informed the applicant that the work was not completed in terms of work order dated 31.10.2015 and the applicant vide email dated 24.09.2018 admitted the fact that they are yet to hand over the site to the corporate debtor. The email reads as: "1. I have cle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by them. Further also stated that due to the default of the applicant, they had to pay fees to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. The copy of fee challan dated 14.12.2017, paid by the corporate debtor is annexed. All these dispute with regards the defective and incomplete services are already raised by corporate debtor in the reply to demand notice under Section 8 of code. 12. The applicant filed written submissions and stated that following: a) That the work was complete and had been intimated to the corporate debtor through email dated 21.04.2018. The site had also been taken over by the corporate debtor, which was highlighted by the applicant in email dated 23.04.2018 which states as : "....but is in use curren....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 16. Considering the documents on records and submissions made, we are of view that there is a pre-existing dispute among the parties and the same is validated as per emails dated 23.04.2018, wherein the corporate debtor had raised dispute with regards the incomplete and delayed service, further as per email dated 07.06.2018, wherein the corporate debtor had also requested the applicant to complete the work at site. Emails dated 10.05.2018 and 24.09.2018 of the applicant, wherein the pendency of work had been admitted by the applicant. The corporate debtor had also raised dispute in its reply to the demand notice of the applicant. The applicant in its written submissions has accepted that in case the corporate debtor is entitled to with....