TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground of existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties, has preferred this appeal. The Facts 2. The material facts that provide a backdrop to this case are as below: a) The appellant is a partnership firm and is involved in the business of construction. While so, on 01.03.2021 it entered into a Construction Contract with the respondent for the execution of certain civil work and allied interior work associated with the lounge near Terminal 3 of Delhi International Airport. Alongside this contract, both the parties entered into what is known as 'Workshop Contract' (the copy of this second mentioned contract is not made part of the record, and the debt involved in this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... f) According to the appellant, despite due verification of all these bills, the respondent showed no intention to honour its liability under the bills. It is in these circumstances, on 03.07.2022, the appellant had issued a demand notice as required under Sec. 8 IBC, but despite receiving it, the respondent showed no interest to pay the same. The respondent has thus committed default in paying the debt, which in turn had given the appellant a cause for filing its petition under Sec. 9 of IBC for commencing a insolvency resolution process against the respondent. 3. In its Reply, the respondent contended: a) That the construction contract which the appellant had entered into with the respondent commenced on 01.03.2021, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant it is mentioned as 14.04.2022) the appellant raised the final bill and it was verified by the respondent. When once the final bill amount was verified by the respondent, the latter's obligation to pay the amount so verified commences. Admittedly, this amount has not been paid, and it completes the debt-default equation necessary to invoke Sec.9 IBC. Reliance was placed on the ratio of this tribunal in R. R. Gopaljee Vs I.O.B. & Others [Comp. A (AT)(Ins) 748 of 2019]. The tribunal however, relied on an e-mail of the respondent dated 25.04.2022 for concluding that there existed a dispute which originated even prior to the issuance of notice under Sec.8 IBC, but this e-mail relates to what is styled as 'Workshop Contract', and do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant attempts to brand a solvent company as insolvent when the fault lies with it. Reliance was placed on the ratio in Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd., Vs Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) (P) Ltd., [(2021)10 SCC 483]. Discussion & Decision 7. After carefully evaluating rival submissions we consider that this appeal is liable to be dismissed, and the reasons are: a) That the final bill dated 11.04.2022 is not seen approved for payment by the respondent, nor its correctness acknowledged by it. On the contrary, the respondent's representative has made two endorsements. The first endorsement runs into two sentences and commences with the phrase: 'Not accepting...'. The learned counsel for the appellant contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e IBC. c) There are two e-mails, of which one is from the respondent to the appellant dated 09.01.2022 (Annexure D to the respondent's reply filed before the tribunal below) in which it had pointedly raised an issue of quality of the work done. The other e-mail is dated 31.05.2022 from the appellant to the respondent wherein the representative of the appellant writes: "My bills have been verified and submitted, barring a few discrepancies, which have to be sorted out....". There is no reference as to when exactly this discrepancy was and if it was sorted out. This apart, Clause 15 of the Construction Contract stipulates that the payment of the final bill would be done but after due certification of the completion of the work. To su....