# In the matter of  A ‘XYKno Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rattan India Power Ltd.,Company Appeal(AT)(Ins) No.913 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-11-10. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00116. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 27.01.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 10 Nov 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00116
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/a-xykno-capital-services-pvt-ltd-vs-rattan-india-power-ltdcompany-appeal-a1fcd826

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 27.01.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority, which rejected a Section 9 application filed by the Appellant, a’XYKno Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant was engaged as a consultant for the Corporate Debtor, Rattan India Power Ltd., providing consultancy services. Invoices were issued in February 2015. On 18.02.2015, the Corporate Debtor raised concerns about the quality of service. The Appellant claims to have replied to the letter on 09.03.2015, but received no further response until 2016. A notice under Section 8 was issued on 26.07.2018, which the Appellant claims was replied to on 02.08.2018, but the Respondent denies receiving the reply. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that a pre-existing dispute existed,

…

## Facts

a’XYKno Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) provided consultancy services to Rattan India Power Ltd. (Respondent/Corporate Debtor). In February 2015, the Appellant issued invoices for these services. On 18.02.2015, the Corporate Debtor sent a letter raising concerns about the quality of the consultancy services related to a Coal Block. The Appellant claims to have replied on 09.03.2015. The Corporate Debtor communicated via email on 05.03.2015 that the Appellant was qualified in Tara Block. The Appellant claims no response was received after 09.03.2015 until 2016. The Appellant issued a notice under Section 8 on 26.07.2018, which was allegedly replied to on 02.08.2018. The Appellant filed a Section 9 application, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority due

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a pre-existing dispute existed between the Appellant (Operational Creditor) and the …

**Ratio:** The existence of a pre-existing dispute, as defined under Section 5(6) of the IBC, bars

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the letter dated 18.02.2015 from the Corporate

…

**Interpretation:** Section 5(6) of the IBC defines 'dispute' broadly to include any suit or

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by determining that the Corporate

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** a’XYKno Capital…
- **Respondents:** Rattan India…
- **Advocates:** Nikhil N…; Vikram…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2015-02-01 — Invoices…**: Appellant issued invoices…
- **2015-02-18 — Dispute R…**: Corporate Debtor sent a letter raising concerns…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8 — Insolvency resolution by operational creditor](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-8)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/a-xykno-capital-services-pvt-ltd-vs-rattan-india-power-ltdcompany-appeal-a1fcd826