# In the matter of Aashish Mohan Gupta Vs. Hind Inn and Hotels Ltd. and Anr. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1282 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-02-12. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00409. This case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 12 Feb 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00409
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/aashish-mohan-gupta-vs-hind-inn-and-hotels-ltd-and-anr-ca-63f2c204

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh) in CP(IB) No. 168/Chd/CHD/2018, which admitted an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Respondent No. 1. The appeal contests the admission of the application, primarily arguing that the retention money claimed does not fall under the definition of operational debt, the claim is time-barred, and there was a pre-existing dispute.

## Facts

The Operational Creditor (Respondent No. 2, CTC Projects Private Limited) was awarded a work order on 2011-11-19 by the Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 1, Hind Inn and Hotels Ltd.) for civil construction. The work order stipulated a retention money clause, where 5% of each running bill would be retained and released after the Defects Liability Period of one year from the completion certificate date. The Corporate Debtor issued a virtual completion certificate on 2014-04-04, with the Defects Liability Period running from 2014-03-31 to 2015-04-01. After the Defects Liability Period, the Operational Creditor requested the release of the retention money on 2015-04-10. The Corporate Debtor, however, raised concerns about water accumulation via email on 2015-07-13, which

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the retention money claimed by the Operational Creditor falls within the definition of …

**Ratio:** Section 5(21) of the IBC defines 'operational debt' as a claim in respect of the

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the retention money is a part of the main bill for the services

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 5(21) broadly to include any debt arising from

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the definition of 'operational debt' to the facts of the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Venugop…; Kanthi Na…; +2 more
- **Appellants:** Aashish Mohan…
- **Respondents:** Hind Inn and…

## Timeline

- **2011-11-19 — Work Order…**: The Operational Creditor (CTC Projects Private Limited) was awarded a work order by the…
- **2014-04-04 — Virtual Completion…**: The Corporate Debtor issued a virtual completion certificate, with the Defects Liability…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5(21) — Definitions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-5)

---

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/aashish-mohan-gupta-vs-hind-inn-and-hotels-ltd-and-anr-ca-63f2c204