TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant who is an operational creditor challenging the order passed by the adjudicating authority refusing to admit Section 9 application filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant was entrusted certain work in different projects by the respondent herein. According to the appellant the work was completed in 2017 certain payments were received by the appellant, however, there was amount due with respect to which the appellant has issued an email dated 22.02.2019 claiming the details of outstanding of both the projects i.e., "Karnataka Project" & "Punjab Project". 3. The email was replied on 22.02.2019 by the corporate debtor, however, there was no resolution of any claim which was made by the appellant. The appellants thereafter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel for the respondent refuting the submissions of the appellant contend that the project was not fully completed by the operational creditor and there were various deficiencies which were pointed out from time to time of emails for the year 2017 & 2018 which has been referred by the adjudicating authority which clearly reflect the pre-existing dispute between the parties and adjudicating authority has rightly dismissed the section 9 application. It is submitted that there was issue of warranty also between the parties which has been noticed. 8. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The email which has been relied by the appellant by which the details outstanding of differe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antial generation of the losses on a daily basis. Paragraph 12 of the impugned order is as follows: "12. We note that the Respondent, vide letter dated 15.01.2018, raised concerns regarding delays in execution of works and referred to its earlier communications dated 10.05.2017, 11.05.2017, 27.05.2017, 20.06.2017, 11.08.2017, and 12.08.2017, wherein the Respondent consistently apprised the Applicant of the pendency and non- completion of works, resulting in substantial generation losses on a daily basis. It was further alleged that instead of undertaking rectification of the defective works and materials, the Applicant suspended the warranty and abandoned the project without formal handover, thereby aggravating the Respondents' ope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts as noticed by the adjudicating authority and especially the email of 21.02.2019 and 22.02.2019 as extracted above, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that claim of the appellant was never acknowledged and the corporate debtor has raised the issues at the relevant time pointing out deficiency in service and for non-completion of the work. The demand notice was issued by the appellant on 11.07.2022 i.e., more than three years after the completion of work as per the appellant. The issues which are sought to be raised by the appellant before the adjudicating authority are the issue which cannot be decided in proceeding under Section 9 of the IBC. The defence which was taken by the corporate debtor in reply to Section 9 application canno....