AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the IBC was rejected holding that the Petition is time barred. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Appellant being an Operational Creditor, filed a Petition under Section 9 of IBC claiming for a sum of Rs. 1,95,28,552/- has been due on account of operational debt from the Corporate Debtor/Respondent in respect of work done by the Operational Creditor in regard to fabrication and erection of steel structure at the plant of the Corporate Debtor situated in Meghalaya. ii) Further case is that pursuant to two work orders dated 13.08.2010 and 20.11.2010 placed by the Corporate Debtor upon the operational creditor, the operational creditor duly completed the work of fabrication and erection of steel structure at its plant in Meghalaya satisfactorily for which completion certificate was issued by the corporate debtor to the operational creditor on 15.02.2013. The Corporate Debtor never disputed the quality of the work done by the operational creditor at their plant in Meghalaya. The said work orders further stipulate that the work was to be completed within 18 months from the date of receipt of the work order. iii) Pursuant to the work done in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench, Guwahati, merely because certain record has been called for by the Adjudicating Authority, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 25th October, 2019. Whatever the arguments as raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the Appellant may be raised before the Adjudicating Authority before it passes the final order under Section 9 of the I&B Code and thereafter, if there is an aggrieved party, that may move before this Appellate Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations." 4. It is further submitted that the Respondent had failed to comply with the directions of the Adjudicating Authority dated 25.10.2019, the Appellant was impelled to file an execution application and a contempt application being I.A. No. 11 of 2020 and I.A. No. 12 of 2020 respectively. At the time of hearing the Respondent agreed to comply with the directions with respect of production of documents, on the basis of which, time was granted to the Respondent till 25.03.2020. Thereafter, contempt application filed by the Appellant was dismissed on 08.02.2021 without granting any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant on the ground that the main c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de and the matter be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh hearing upon consideration of the documents which the Respondent has been directed to produce pursuant to the orders dated 25.10.2019 and 25.11.2019. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent 8. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument and in his reply along with written submissions submitted that the Adjudicating Authority did not violate the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as the Adjudicating Authority passed by the impugned order pursuant to acknowledging and analysing all the document filed and submissions made by the parties. The Appellant has allegedly sought that a direction should be passed against the Respondent to comply with the orders dated 25.10.2019 and 27.02.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority after verifying the financial documents to determine whether the claim is barred by limitation. The Appellant has falsely alleged that the Respondent did not comply with the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Respondent while duly abiding by the said order filed all the requisite financial docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent has not made any admission or acknowledgment as falsely averred by the Appellant, in any manner, whatsoever. 11. It is further submitted that the Appellant has repeatedly submitted that in the balance sheets the Respondent has acknowledged alleged debts due to the Appellant. In this regard, the Appellant should be held liable for misrepresentation as nowhere in the balance sheets, the Respondent has admitted to any debt owed to the Appellant. The Appellant has wrongly submitted that it was not provided with an opportunity to make any submissions on merit on I.A. No. 11 and 12 of 2020 on the scheduled date of hearing i.e. 09.12.2018. The Appellant was duly heard by the Adjudicating Authority and also rightly recorded in the impugned order that the parties were heard. The Appellant failed to apprise this Tribunal that as per work orders, the date of default is 01.07.2011 i.e. after three months of the past payment due on 30.06.2011, this fact has also been recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. Based on these submissions, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the impugned order, therefore, there is no merit in the present Appeal, the Appeal is f....