TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of CIR proceedings against Respondent namely M/s. Mahavir Stone Crushing Pvt. Ltd. 2. The applicant has provided various sanitation and plumbing services to the Corporate Debtor in the period 2014-2016 under a contract dated 15.07.2017 for which a work order was furnished to the applicant on 20.07.2013. However, such documents admittedly have not been filed with the original petition and it is clearly accepted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that he has not furnished the work order/contract alongwith the petition. 3. It is the case of the applicant that after providing the goods & service, bills were raised from time to time on the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor/Respondent discharged a sum of Rs. 68,86,105 (Rupees Sixt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which, the applicant admits that Rs. 68,86,105 (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Five) has been paid by the Corporate Debtor and the balance of Rs. 46,86,581 (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighty One) is due and payable for which a notice dated 03.05.2017 was issued initially by one Mr. A.K. Sahu on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The reply to the above notice was issued on 20.05.2020 by one Gaur & Associates on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, disputing the very claim and called for relevant documents to substantiate the same. 8. The Petitioner on 09.06.2017 issued another notice stating that there was a typographical mistake in the notice dated 03.05.2017 regarding the recoverable amount. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Arbitrators, 1996 of the Delhi High Court Rules for Appointment of Arbitrators (at page 67; Annexure R-9 of the reply) seeking for the following reliefs: "(a) Appoint an independent and impartial sole arbitrator for referring to and adjudicating the claim of petitioner against the respondent, in the interest of justice. (b) Pass such other or further order, direction or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice." 13. The above Petition for appointment of Arbitrator was filed by the Applicant/Petitioner herein on 13.05.2019, bearing number ARB. P. No. 417 of 2019 and is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It appears that the Corporate Debtor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Proceedings, which is a fall out of the series of notices and the Suit proceedings with reference to Arbitration. 17. On the plea of Limitation, Ld. Counsel for the applicant stated that the various dates are mentioned in the Part-IV, on which the amount fell due. The date on which debt fell due is 07.10.2015 and the subsequent bill dated 10.06.2016 would extend the limitation period based on the work order dated 20.07.2013. 18. The second contention is that the Arbitral Proceedings were withdrawn which has been recorded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 14.03.2020 and subsequently the copy of the Order has been furnished to this Tribunal. 19. Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor inter alia submitted that the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petition will fail on account of limitation. 24. The plea that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will save the present case does not find merit. At the time of filing of the petition, i.e., on 27.01.2020, the Petitioner/Applicant knows about the pendency of Arbitral Proceedings and should have withdrawn the same at the time of filing and prosecuting the matter before this Tribunal. The afterthought to withdraw the Arbitral Proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, that too after filing this petition before this Tribunal clearly shows that it was done to overcome the limitation and to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was bona fide prosecuting the proceedings before another....