TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Debtor M/s. VA Tech Wabag Ltd., by the name of civil works for Plant Water system for APGENCO-KTPP project vide Order No. MBG-PO-15481/10P5M dated 06.06.2014 that later on, the said work order stood amended, vide work Order No.MBG-PO-17110/ 10P80 dated 12.02.2015, that on 23.04.2015 Completion Certificate was issued by APGENCO, that after bifurcation of the state of Andhra Pradesh, APGENCO become TSGENCO for the state of Telangana, that certain amount fell due to be paid by the Respondent V A Tech WABAG, and that the Appellant moved a section 9 application before Learned NCLT which got dismissed on 20.03.2024. 2. It is contended by the Operational Creditor, the Appellant herein, that as per the terms of the work contract dated 06.06.2014 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a fact pleaded, without there being any material as such placed on the records to show that the meeting was actually conducted and the meeting were drawn up containing the version of the Appellant with regard to agreement as claimed above. 4. The Appellant further contends that there was a second phase of settlement, which was entered into on 13.06.2019, in the meeting of the Corporate Debtor, as well as the Operational Creditor (the Appellant herein), wherein the Corporate Debtor is said to have agreed to pay 6.5 crores, as a full and final settlement for the work done. But the same was not paid. Yet again, the minutes of the said alleged second settlement of 13.06.2019 is not on record except, for the fact that the Appellant attempts to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emand notice by issuance of Form 3 on 10.09.2022, where yet again in its Column 2, the amount shown to be falling due to be paid till 10.09.2022 was expressed to be Rs.25,84,17,857/- and the date of default was shown to be 01.05.2016. Admittedly, after issuance of the demand notice on the aforesaid dates i.e., 14.12.2020 & 10.09.2022, there cannot be any iota of doubt that the date of default as expressed by the Appellant in his notice of demand, was shown to be 01.05.2016 (being a date common in both demand notices). 6. The proceedings under Section 9 of I & B Code, was shown to have been drawn by filing the Application only on 15.06.2023. The said Application has been rejected by the Learned Tribunal, while dismissing the proceedings und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same on the same day by the Impugned Order of 20.03.2024 is concerned, it would be a minor procedural anomaly, which cannot be taken as a ground to challenge a decision that has been taken on merits by Learned Tribunal in the said Company Petition. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that when the Company Petition was taken up for consideration, it was for establishing whether Company Petition was maintainable, based on 4 sets of defects raised by the Registry with respect to 2 demand notices, whether application has been filed within limitation, whether there is acknowledgement and clarification with respect to difference in amount due as per demand notice and section 9 application. The Appellant has alleged that the appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be falling to be well within the prescribed period of limitation. He has further submitted that the Statutory Auditor of the Corporate Debtor, had also confirmed the balance as it was standing in the books of account, which was to be paid by the Corporate Debtor, as it could be reflected from the email communication from 28.03.2022. Accordingly he has contended that the Impugned Order would be bad in the eyes of law for the reason being that, be what so ever the implication the confirmation of the balances of the Corporate Debtor may have, qua the date of default for the purpose of determining the aspect of limitation, it was incumbent upon the Learned Adjudication Authority to consider its implications and to record its findings on the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arrived on its finding based on the Record of Information Utility Form D only without seeking any clarification and that the findings have been made without any proper appreciation of facts. 11. The Learned Tribunal in the impugned order has clearly recorded that there is a pre-existing dispute, which is evident from the two stages of settlement, which were being attempted to be arrived at that is on 08.03.2017 & 13.06.2019, that the alleged settlement of 13.06.2019 is shown in a document that is unauthenticated, that the arbitration process, is being conducted, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the dispute in respect of the receivables from TSGENCO, by appointing sole arbitrator, that in the annual report of the Corporate Debt....