TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria, Ms. Vaishnavi Prakash, Ms. Surbhi Bhuraria, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Mr. Abhishek Singh Chauhan, Advocates for Applicant in IAs No. 4624 and 8487 of 2024. Mr. Atul Bhatia, Mr. Ranjan Chakraborti, Advocates for RP. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Mr. Ripul Swati, Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Advocates for R - 2 For Appellant : Mr. Harsh Jain, Mr. Umang Mehta, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria, Ms. Vaishnavi Prakash, Ms. Surbhi Bhuraria, Advocates for Applicant in IA No. 1487 of 2025. Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Mr. Abhishek Singh Chauhan, Advocates for Applicant in IAs No. 4623 and 8488 of 2024. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Mr. Ripul Swati, Mr. Krishna Rastog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....024 raising demand of Rs. 1,24,16,610/-. The Corporate Debtor did not reply to the Section 8 notice, nor made payment against it. iv. The Operational Creditor had placed on record copy of bank statement for the Financial Year 2016-17 showing receipt of part payments from the Corporate Debtor and RA Bill dated 15.01.2016, 22.06.2016, 10.12.2016, 06.01.2017, 12.05.2017 & 07.11.2017. v. Before the Ld. NCLT, the Corporate Debtor raised some issues regarding non installation of fire projection systems and failure to provide Ventilation work. vi. The Ld. NCLT noted that the Corporate Debtor had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the aforesaid allegations and did not accept the contention of pre-existing disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erational Creditor referred to the reply dated 03.12.2024 filed by the Operational Creditor, and submitted that the Operational Creditor was pursuing to realise payments continuously before the issue of demand notice. The Learned Counsel submitted that in Annexure - A of their reply they have enclosed letter dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Corporate Debtor wherein Corporate Debtor has accepted that an amount of Rs. 82,40,016/- is outstanding with reference to the first purchase order dated 04.09.2015, an amount of Rs. 19,87,404/- is outstanding in respect of the second purchase order dated 13.01.2017 and an amount of Rs. 7,94,133/- is outstanding in respect of the third purchase order dated 01.03.2017 and had stated that due to huge cashflow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be considered by this Tribunal. 7. To this argument, the Learned Counsel for the Operational Creditor stated that since the defence of limitation was not taken during the proceedings before the Ld. NCLT, there was no necessity to place these documents before the Ld. NCLT. These documents have been annexed with the reply of the Operational Creditor as the Appellant for the first time has raised the issue of limitation in this Appeal. 8. We have heard both the parties and have perused the records. 9. We note that the issue of limitation was not taken as defence before the Ld. NCLT and has been taken as a defence in this appeal proceedings for the first time. Since the objection regarding limitation goes to the root of the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2024 has been filed by buyers of Flat Nos. 701, 702 and 202 of Tower A-5 of "Avalon Rangoli Dharuhera" constructed by M/s GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is the contention of the Appellants that they have not been provided possession of Flats for which they have filed consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana and by 3 separate orders, all dated 20.11.2022, the State Commission, has allowed the consumer complaints and it was directed that the amount invested by the them be refunded along with interest. 12. It was stated that the Appellant No. 4 had also initiated execution proceedings for execution of the award passed by the ....