TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oad Dynamics South Asia Pvt. Ltd., they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 72 of 2017, the appellant has challenged the order dated 29th March, 2017 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai) whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I & B Code') for initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) against the respondent - Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. ('Corporate Debtor') has been rejected. 3. In other case, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 77 of 2017, similar application under Section 9 of the I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication under Section 9 and no application under Section 9 can be rejected on the ground that 'Corporate Debtor' is solvent. Though, we hold above, but for the reasons recorded below we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 29th March, 2017. 8. From the notice dated 21st January, 2017 issued by the appellant under Section 8 to 'Corporate Debtor' - Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., we find that the claim has been made with regard to outstanding dues on account of 'three different projects' arising out of three separate work orders. For example, with regard to 'GF Toll Project', the total payment made by the 'Corporate Debtor' is Rs. 5,41,07,993/- including the last payment of Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the respondent also highlighted 'existence of dispute' in regard to non-completion of the project within the time, and, the counter-claim as made by the respondent -'Corporate Debtor'. However, in absence of any document enclosed, showing dispute raised prior to issuance of Section 8 notice, we are not deciding such issue. For the reason aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 29th March, 2017, though it is open to the appellant to move separate application in respect of separate work orders/ contracts, if not barred by limitation or delay and laches and if there is no dispute after following the procedure laid down under I & B Code and Rules framed thereunder. 12. Insofar as t....