1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO.415/2020

(Arising out of judgment and order dated 27th January, 2020 passed in
Company Petition No. CP (IB) 3753/MB/C-IV/2018 by National Company Law
Tribunal, Mumbai)

In the matter of:

Naresh Sevantilal Shah

Having Office at,
103/C, Thosar House,
Hanuman Cross Road No. 1,
Near Shivleela Hotel,
Ville Parle (East), Mumbai- 400057 ...Appellant

Versus

1. Malharshanti Enterprises
59A/12, Nagari Niwara Parisad,
Gen A K Vaidya Marg,
Film City Road, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai: 400063

2. Jitendra Kumar Rambaran Yadav

Interim Resolution Professional
Office at, +6No. 11, Singh House, 2nd Floor,
23, Ambalal Doshi Marg,
Mumbai: 400001 …Respondents

Present:

Advocates for Appellant: Mr. Aditya Manubarwala, Mr Deepak Joshi, Mr.

Amir Arsiwala and Mr. Varun Verma.

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020

 2

Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Kartik Sethi, Mr. Dhaval Deshpande and
Mr. Yash Jariwala.
JUDGMENT
(19th January, 2021)
Mr. Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by Naresh Sevantilal Shah (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Appellant’) under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I&B Code’) challenging the impugned order
dated 27th January, 2020 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai
Bench (hereinafter referred as ‘Adjudicating Authority’) in Company Petition
No. CP (IB) 3753/MB/C-IV/2018 under which Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Malharshanti
Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ‘Operational Creditor’) filed a Company
Petition under section 9 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking initiation
of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against CAN Enterprises
Private Limited (hereinafter referred as ‘Corporate Debtor’) on the grounds
that the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 94,64,770
(Rupees ninety-four lakh sixty-four thousand seven hundred and seventy
only) as principal and Rs. 68,66,919 (Rupees sixty-eight lakh sixty-six
thousand nine hundred nineteen only) as interest as on 22nd August, 2018.
3. Corporate Debtor is a private company limited by shares and incorporated on
11th September, 2009 under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Appellant is the
suspended Director cum Promoter shareholder of the Corporate Debtor. The
Operational Creditor is engaged in the business of the construction of
buildings. The Corporate Debtor hired the service of the Operational Creditor
by a Work Order dated 25th May, 2014 for carrying out the construction for
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 3

one of its project viz. ‘Rose Villa’, which required the construction of stilt
plus six upper floors based on the construction drawings to be issued by the
architect of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority heard the
parties and admitted the claim of the Operational Creditor and ordered the
initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant on being aggrieved
by the Order of the Adjudicating Authority, have preferred the present Appeal.
4. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Operational
Creditor first sent a demand notice under section 8 of the I&B Code to the
Corporate Debtor on 2nd December, 2017. On the basis of the first demand
notice, the Operational Creditor filed a petition under section 9 of the I&B
Code, being CP (IB) 1823/2017. In the first petition, the Corporate Debtor
raised several pre-existing disputes in its affidavit in reply. On 13 th August,
2018, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the first petition with the
following finding “On hearing such arguments, the Petitioner Counsel having
realized that the petition is defective because damages claim has been
included in the petition, he has asked for withdrawal of this petition with a
liberty to proceed against the Corporate Debtor with a correct claim as
envisaged under this code. In view of this submission made by the Petitioner
Counsel, the Company Petition is hereby dismissed giving liberty to the
Petitioner to come with the correct claim before this bench.”
5. It is further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that on 13th March, 2018, the
Corporate Debtor sent a detailed legal notice to the Operational Creditor
setting out several pre-existing disputes as to quality of work and delay in
completion of work. By this communication, a counter claim was also raised
against Operational Creditors. Subsequently on 10th April, 2018, a notice
invoking arbitration was sent to the Operational Creditor. Thus arbitral
proceedings under section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996,
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 4

were pending from 10th April 2018. Subsequent to this the Operational
Creditor sent another demand notice under section 8 of I&B Code on 23 rd
August, 2018. Corporate Debtor replied to second demand notice within 10
days of receiving it and raised several pre-existing disputes. On the basis of
second demand notice, the Operational Creditor filed CP (IB) 3753/MB/C-
IV/2018 in which the Impugned Order came to be passed.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that, prior to the
second demand notice, Corporate Debtor already invoked arbitration.
Therefore, there was a pre-existing dispute in the form of pending arbitral
proceedings and for this reason alone, the impugned order ought to be set
aside. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for Appellant on Pramod
Yadav & Anr. Vs. Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins)
251/2017 particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 which we have reproduced herein
under:

9. From the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ made
request under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
which reads as follows:

“21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings. ─ Unless

otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in
respect of a particular disputed commence on the date on
which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration
is received by the respondent.”

10. In view of the fact that the arbitral proceedings commence since the
request made under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, we hold that on commencement of arbitral proceedings, it is rightly

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020

 5

pleaded that there is an existence of dispute and therefore, the petition

under Section 9 was not maintainable.

7. It is further contended on behalf of the Appellant that the impugned order in

paragraph 19-22, holds that arbitral proceedings were not before first demand
notice and therefore were not pre-existing dispute. Reliance was placed upon
the Judgment of Dinesh Gupta vs. Hajura Singh Bhim Singh & Anr.,
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 99 of 2018 however the reliance
on the same was misplaced as in that case the first petition was dismissed on
technical grounds (demand notice not on OC’s letterhead). However, in the
present case, the first petition was not dismissed on technical grounds, but
because Operational Creditor had made an incorrect claim. Thus the relevant
date for determining whether there was a pre-existing dispute was the date of
Second demand notice, i.e. 23rd August, 2018, and the notices raising a
counter-claim and invoking arbitration were prior to that i.e. 13th March, 2018
& 10th April 2018 respectively.
8. It is stated on behalf of the Appellant that in paragraph 33 of the impugned
order, reply dated 13th December, 2017 to the first demand notice is quoted,
which clearly shows that work was not completed. Paragraphs 36 & 37 of the
impugned order states that Corporate Debtor has certified work done by the
Operational Creditor without pointing out any defects. Reliance is placed on
certain Architect’s Reports. However, a perusal of these reports shows several
defects have been pointed out in the completion of the work. It is submitted
that the Adjudicating Authority cannot go into the merits of these defects to
decide whether they are major defects or minor defects.
9. The is further stated on behalf of the Appellant that in view of the pending
disputes and halted work at the site which resulted in delayed execution of the

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020

 6

work order, the Appellant as well as the Operational Creditor entered into a
memorandum of understanding in respect of completion of work. The said
memorandum was executed vide letter dated 25th September, 2015. The said
memorandum was records that the Operational Creditor agreed to complete
the project by 10th October, 2014 for a full and final settlement amount of Rs.
5 lakhs. Admittedly, Operational Creditor did not complete the work within
this time frame and sought waiver of penalty clause by way of his letter dated
12th December, 2015. Thus Operational Creditor guilty of having delayed the
project. This is also pre-existing dispute. This aspect has not been adverted to
or answered by the Operational Creditor at all even during the oral
submissions. The Operational Creditor relies on self-serving emails by
conveniently ignores the architect’s reports, memorandum dated 25.09.2015
because of the disputes between the parties, his own emails of unilateral
extension of the project work and his own email dated 29 th June, 2015 itself
admitting that “maximum trouble is on the first & second floor only & that
too on west side due to heavy rains. Presently our focus is on enhancement of
performance of works carried out till date.”
10.It is contended by the Learned Counsel for Appellant that the impugned order
erroneously made substantial findings on pre-existing disputes in essentially
a summary proceeding, thus wishing away the powers of the arbitral tribunal
which were specifically invoked by the Appellant on 10 th April, 2018 a good
four months prior to the demand notice by the Operational Creditor.
11.It is further contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Adjudicating
Authority in its impugned order held that even though interest is not payable,
the second petition is still maintainable. However, even as per the ledger
accounts produced by the Operational Creditor, even the principle amount as
stated in the impugned order is at variance with that of the ledger, further no
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 7

interest amount is payable or claimed. Thus the entitlement of Operational

Creditor to interest along with principle (as claimed in the second demand
notice) is also in dispute and is thus a pre-existing dispute.
12.It is also submitted by the Appellant that the Operational Creditor has claimed
payment on account of “Additional Work” allegedly not covered by the Work
Order. However, the Operational Creditor has not produced any documents
before the Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal justifying this
Additional Work. There is no document establishing the payment terms for
this Additional Work. Rather, Operational Creditor not even complete the
work set out under the Work Order.
13.It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that even
otherwise, without any written agreement, operational creditor would have to
prove its entitlement to payment for any “Additional Work” as damages to be
claimed in appropriate civil proceedings. As per the clause 20.02 of the Work
Order, any “Additional Work”, even if undertaken, was to be compensated in
accordance with that clause, and in no other way. Thus there is a pre-existing
dispute as to whether the Operational Creditor is entitled for any payment on
account of “Additional Work” or audited ledger copy to substantiate its claim.
Audited books of accounts and financial statements have certain sanctity in
the eyes of law.
14.Per contra, learned counsel for Operational Creditor submitted at the outset
that the Appellant has raised fallacious and belated defenses and that too after
approximately after 2 years of completion of work. It is submitted that the
debt of the Operational Creditor, as a contractor emanates out of the work
order dated 25th May, 2014 in lieu of which the Operational Creditor
successfully constructed a residential building known as ‘Rose Villa’
consisting of stilt plus six floors including the additional works. The
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 8

completed site was thereafter handed over to the Appellant on 16th November,
2015. Demobilization took place on 19th November, 2015. However, it is
submitted by the learned counsel that some workforce remained on site till
24th December, 2015, qua additional works. During the progress of the work,
the Operational Creditor raised 20 invoices for the contractual civil work and
5 invoices for the additional work.
15.It was further submitted on behalf of Operational Creditor that during the
completion of the work, and after completion of work and till January 2017,
the Operational Creditor issued various emails and letters to the Appellant,
informing the Appellant about raising RA Bills, the overall updates of the
projects, delay in project due to factors solely attributable to the appellant,
additional works and seeking release of payments from the corporate debtor.
Not even a single communication made by the Operational Creditor was
responded to by the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the Corporate
Debtor responded for the first time only in its reply date 13th December, 2017
which was the reply to the notice issued by the Operational Creditor under
Section 8(1) of I&B Code dated 02nd December, 2017
16.It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the Operational Creditor that
the first Section 9 petition was withdrawn on technical grounds, as reflected
in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 13th March, 2018. It
was only thereafter that the Corporate Debtor chose to issue an arbitration
notice, at a time that the Operational Creditor herein was curing the technical
defects in question. It is further submitted that the invoices forming the
foundation of the operational debt formed part of the first notice under Section
8(1) of I&B Code dated 02nd December, 2017 and also formed part of the
second notice under Section 8(1), I&B Code dated 23rd August, 2018. It is
submitted that the moment the invoices underlying the operational debt were
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 9

served upon the Corporate Debtor on 02nd December, 2017, there was no
longer any question of a subsequent arbitration notice being issued. Under
Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitration notice
triggers commencement of an arbitration proceeding. In this case, the
arbitration notice was issued on 10th April, 2018, which is subsequent to the
invoices underlying the operational debt being served upon the Corporate
Debtor on 02nd December, 2017.
17.Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Operational Creditor on
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
vs Kirusa Software (P) Ltd. reported at (2017) 1 SCC OnLine SC 353. It
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the ‘existence of the dispute’
and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-existing – i.e. it must
exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoices as the case may be.
18.It was contended by the learned counsel for Operational Creditor that the
Appellant also raised an issue that additional works were never performed,
but Appellant in reply to the first demand notice admitted that additional
works were performed.
19.It was further stated by the learned counsel for the Operational Creditor that
the emails were sent to the Corporate Debtor seeking release of payments,
providing regular updates on the project, raising of RA Bills, continuously
reminding the appellant to seek municipal approval for continuation of work
as RCC work was on hold for more than 72 days. Several emails were referred
to by the counsel for the Operational Creditor (dated 12.05.2015, 14.03.2015,
24.06.2015, 29.06.2015, 22.07.2015, 28.08.2015, 05.10.2015, 21.10.2015,
16.11.2015, 03.12.2015, 12.12.2015, 08.01.2016, 01.02.2016) which were
sent to the Appellant which highlighted performance of additional works and
related aspects including delay and enhancement of performance. In particular
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 10

reference was made to the email dated 27th October, 2015 wherein it was
informed that the work got delayed again due to factors beyond the control of
the Operational Creditor. On 22nd November, 2015, an e-mail was sent with
the subject “successful completion of civil work” which informed that the
workers were still attending additions and alterations.
20.It was also submitted that the emails (dated 19.02.2016, 26.02.2016,
04.04.2016, 23.05.2016, 09.07.2016, 15.10.2016 and 02.11.2916) were issued
seeking payment of money and confirmation of ledger account and the email
dated 30th January, 2017 was sent seeking settlement of dues as it had been
more than 15 months since the work was completed. Therefore, it is submitted
that right from July 2014 till the end of January 2017, Operational Creditor
raised various communications which were not replied to, even once.
21.It was also submitted that the Operational Creditor issued a legal notice for
recovery on 29th March, 2017, which was not replied to by the Appellant. All
the invoices raised qua contractual and civil works were also duly
acknowledged by the staff of the Appellant. Thereafter, the Operational
Creditor invoked the I&B Code, 2016 and issued a notice under Section 8 of
the said Code in the month of December, 2017. It is only then that for the first
time that the Appellant issued a reply raising frivolous disputes. Furthermore,
the Appellant in the appeal relies upon some emails and that too in isolation.
The contention of the Appellant that there is a pre-existing dispute therefore
gets negated as for the first time, it is only in the reply to the notice under
Section 8 of I&B Code, 2016, that the Appellant has raised concerns over few
issues.
22.Learned counsel for the Operational Creditor further submitted that other
contentions of the Appellant such as violation of the work order, non-
performance of additional work, abandonment of work site an engagement of
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 11

third parties for completion of work, delay in performance of work has been
responded to by the Operational Creditor. It is submitted that qua
abandonment, the Operational Creditor informed in advance regarding
handing over of work site on 16th November, 2015 but till 24th December,
2015, the labor of Operational Creditor was working at the site would
tantamount to abandonment. Hexagon Consultants even issued structural
ability certificate to the municipality in the month of august, 2014. Moreover,
the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay vide letter dated 07th September,
2016 issued Occupation Certificate (‘OC’) to the Appellant. After obtaining
the said OC and selling many flats of the project, the Appellant blows hot and
cold and raises frivolous disputes.
23.It was further stated that regarding the reports rendered by the architect
learned counsel submitted that the architect found the work “okay” pointing
out minor discrepancies. The discrepancies, if were not removed by the
Operational Creditor, would have definitely found mention in the subsequent
architect reports. The Operational Creditor cured all the discrepancies pointed
out by the architect. If there were any discrepancy, the appellant couldn’t have
obtained Occupation Certificate from municipality.
24.It was further submitted that in the rejoinder additional documents were
annexed by the Appellant without permission from this Appellate Tribunal,
though the same did not form a part of the record of the Adjudicating
Authority. The Operational Creditor denied the authenticity of these
documents and stated that there was no opportunity to deal with these
documents on affidavit. It is submitted that both the reports of August, 2020
and February, 2018 have been prepared subsequent to the expiration of defect
liability period of one year in November, 2016. The project was handed over
to the Appellant in November, 2015, but the said reports pertain to period 3-
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 12

5 years after completion of project and at this juncture, the two reports cannot
be relied upon.
25.It was further submitted by the learned counsel for Operational Creditor that
qua limitation, the last payment was made by the Corporate Debtor on 29th
September, 2015, which is confirmed by Operational Creditor’s bank
certificate dated 23rd April, 2018. The last invoice was raised by operational
Creditor in January, 2016. The second application was filed in September,
2018. Therefore, even if the last date of payment is considered to be the date
of default even then the second application cannot be said to be time barred
under Section 137 of the Limitation Act.
26.It was further submitted that on 05th September, 2019, oral arguments were
concluded before the Adjudicating Authority. On the very next date, the
Appellant entered into an inter corporate loan agreement with the Financial
Creditor for a paltry sum of Rs. 1 lakh only and deprived the Operational
Creditor to be the sole member of the Committee of Creditors comprising only
of the Operational Creditor. In the appeal and rejoinder, the Appellant states
that it has an asset base of rupees seven crores. Therefore, it is submitted by
the learned counsel there was no need for the Appellant to obtain a loan of
rupees one lakh from the Financial Creditor. The said transaction has been
confirmed by them in first minutes of the meeting. Thus, the Financial
Creditor was brought into the scheme with the oblique motive of ousting the
Operational Creditor.
27.It was further stated by the learned counsel that Regulation 14 of Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Board of India (IRP for Corporate Persons), 2016 provides
for determination of amount of claim by the Resolution Professional and its
adequately empowered to revise the amount of the claim admitted. Therefore,
whether the debt is crystallized or not or whether the interest is recoverable or
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 13

not can be left to the discretion of the Resolution Professional to decide. The
material test results and the insurance policies of the labor and the
photographs that show 83.55% completion of project work show that there
was absolutely no dispute between the Appellant and Operational Creditor till
handing over of the said project.
28.It was contended by the Learned Counsel for the Operational Creditor that the
dispute was raised for the first time by the Appellant only when Operational
Creditor invoked the provisions of I&B Code, 2016. The Appellant had
throughout maintained quietus during the progress of the work, completion of
work in 2015 and till the month of December, 2017. The Appellant was issued
Occupation Certificate by Municipal Authorities in September, 2016. The
Operational Creditor issued several communications demanding payment, but
to no avail. The claims are within limitation. Operational Creditor has
disputed the additional documents. It was also submitted that the Appellant
did not responded to Operational Creditor’s CA’s request for confirmation of
accounts.
29.We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the records. The question that arises for consideration is as follows:
a) Whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties and
weather the pre-existence of dispute shall be seen from the date of the first
demand notice dated 2nd December 2017 or the second demand notice dated
23rd August, 2018?
b) Whether the Adjudicating Authority rightly allow the petition of the
Operational Creditor under section 9 of I&B Code?

30.In the case of Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs Kirusa Software (P) Ltd.
reported at (2017) 1 SCC OnLine SC 353 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 14

as to what are the facts to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority while

examining an application under section 9 of I&B Code which is reproduced
below:

“33. The scheme under Sections 8 and 9 of the Code, appears to be that an
operational creditor, as defined, may, on the occurrence of a default (i.e., on non-
payment of a debt, any part whereof has become due and payable and has not
been repaid), deliver a demand notice of such unpaid operational debt or deliver
the copy of an invoice demanding payment of such amount to the corporate
debtor in the form set out in Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Form 3 or 4, as
the case may be (Section 8(1)). Within a period of 10 days of the receipt of such
demand notice or copy of invoice, the corporate debtor must bring to the notice
of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute and/or the record of the
pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of such notice
or invoice in relation to such dispute (Section 8(2)(a)). What is important is that
the existence of the dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-
existing – i.e. it must exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoice, as
the case may be…….”

“34. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, when examining an application under

Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:
i. Whether there is an “operational debt” as defined exceeding Rs.1 lakh?
ii. Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the application shows
that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid? And
iii. Whether there is existence of a dispute between the parties or the record
of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt
of the demand notice of the unpaid operational debt in relation to such
dispute?

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020

 15

If any one of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would have to
be rejected.

Apart from the above, the adjudicating authority must follow the mandate of
Section 9, as outlined above, and in particular the mandate of Section 9(5) of the
Act, and admit or reject the application, as the case may be, depending upon the
factors mentioned in Section 9(5) of the Act.”

From the above decision it is clear that the existence of the dispute must be
pre-existing i.e., it must exist before the receipt of the demand notice or
invoice. Section 9 of the IBC makes it very clear for the Adjudicating
Authority to admit the application “if no notice of dispute is received by the
Operational Creditor and there is no record of the dispute in the information
utility.” In the absence of any existence of a dispute between the parties or the
record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the
receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid ‘Operational Debt’. Consequently,
the application cannot be rejected under section 9 and is required to be
admitted.

31. It is apparent from the records that the Corporate Debtor had not raised any
objection pertaining to the work performed by the Operational Creditor prior
to the first demand notice dated 2nd December, 2017. It was on 13th December,
2017 when the Corporate Debtor responded for the first time in its reply to the
notice issued by the Operational Creditor under Section 8(1) of I&B Code.
We have noted that a large number of email communications has been made
by the Operational Creditor and not even a single response was made by the
Corporate Debtor raising such disputes.
32. The Contention of the Appellant that the relevant date for determining
whether there was a pre-existing dispute was the date of second demand
notice, i.e. 23rd August, 2018 and not the first demand notice dated 2nd
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 16

December, 2017 as the first petition was dismissed by the Adjudicating

Authority as the Petitioner Counsel had asked for withdrawal of the first
petition due to incorrect claims made under first application, with a liberty to
proceed against the Corporate Debtor with a correct claim as envisaged under
I&B Code.

The above Contention raised by the Appellant cannot be sustained. The

Adjudicating Authority has rightly relied upon the ratio laid down by this
Tribunal in the case of Dinesh Gupta vs. Hajura Singh Bhim Singh &
another, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 99 of 2018 wherein is
was held that:

“6. On hearing the parties, as we find that there was no dispute in existence
prior to the 1st demand notice issued under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code and
the Corporate Debtor disputed the claim about quality only after issuance of
1st demand notice, therefore, after withdrawal of 1st application under Section
9 on technical grounds and issuance of fresh demand notice, the application
under Section 9 filed by Respondent was maintainable.”

33. The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority misplaced its reliance
on the above Judgment as in that case the first petition was dismissed on
technical ground. However, in the present case, the first petition was not
dismissed on technical ground but because Operational Creditor had made an
incorrect claim.

This argument of the Appellant is turned down as firstly the above Judgment
was mainly pointing out that there should be no dispute in existence prior to
the 1st demand notice issued under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code. The
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 17

Appellant has wrongly emphasized on the word ‘technical ground’ and not
the ratio that was laid down under the judgment. Secondly, it is the
Adjudicating Authority who shall observe whether the ground on which the
first application was dismissed was a technical ground or not.
34. It is apparent from the records placed before this tribunal that Corporate
Debtor have sent a legal notice on 13th March, 2018 setting out several pre-
existing disputes as to quality of work and delay in completion of work and
also raised a counter claim against the Operational Creditor. The Corporate
Debtor also sent a notice invoking arbitration on 10th April, 2018. These issues
were raised after the issuance of the first demand notice. Thus there were no
disputes existing prior to the issuance of first demand notice.
35. The arbitration notice was sent after the issuance of the first demand notice
but prior to the issuance of second demand notice when the Operational
Creditor was busy in removing the defects in its first petition. This exhibits
that the intention of the Appellant behind this was to misuse the provisions
under the Code and to intentionally delaying the process of law. There were
no objections raised in relation to quality of work prior to the issuance of first
demand notice and the work done by the Operational Creditor was in fact
certified by the architect appointed by the Corporate Debtor. Moreover, the
Municipal Corporation in September, 2016 issued Occupation Certificate to
the Appellant. If there were any discrepancies, the appellant could not have
obtained Occupation Certificate from municipality. This also shows that all
the defects pointed out by the architect have been timely rectified within the
appropriate time, so that the Municipal Corporation found it appropriate to
issue the Occupation Certificate.
36. In the light of the above observations and the records placed before us. We
are of the view that there was no dispute existing prior to the first demand
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020
 18

notice and only disputes raised prior to the first demand notice are relevant to
determine its pre-existence and disputes raised thereafter are totally irrelevant
for the same. Also the arbitration was invoked after the first demand notice.
Thus the Adjudicating Authority have rightly concluded that there was no
dispute existing prior to the demand notice issued under section 8 of I&B
Code.
37. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason for
interference with the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Hence Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Justice Jarat Kumar Jain)

Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Balvinder Singh)

Member (Technical)

(Mr. V.P. Singh)

Member (Technical)

bm

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.415 of 2020