# In the matter of Aditya Raheja Vs. Heritage Marble Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CA (AT) No. 248-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-05-29. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00253. This appeal was filed by Aditya Raheja, Director of GStaad Hotels Private Limited (Corporate…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 May 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00253
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/aditya-raheja-vs-heritage-marble-pvt-ltd-anr-ca-f826b9fa

## Summary

### Background

This appeal was filed by Aditya Raheja, Director of GStaad Hotels Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), against an order dated April 26, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench. The order admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by Heritage Marble Private Limited (Operational Creditor). The appellant challenged the admission of the application, arguing that the claim was based on disputed documents.

## Facts

The case involves an appeal against the admission of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant, Aditya Raheja, is the Director of GStaad Hotels Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The respondent, Heritage Marble Private Limited (Operational Creditor), filed the application based on an alleged debt. A key fact is the dispute over invoice no. 568 dated 12.02.2013. The respondent claimed this invoice was issued to the corporate debtor for Rs.21,00,003/-, but another invoice with the same number and date was issued to M/s Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of the corporate debtor. This discrepancy raised doubts about the validity of the debt and the maintainability of the application under Section 9. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was …

**Ratio:** An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not maintainable

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the existence of a dispute regarding the invoices raised doubts

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 9 requires that the debt must be undisputed for

…

**Application:** In this case, the dispute over the invoices was considered a genuine dispute,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Aditya R…
- **Respondents:** Gstaad Hotels…; Heritage Marble…
- **Advocates:** Balaji Srin…; Pratiksha…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2018-04-26 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, passed an order…
- **2018-05-25 — Case Tak…**: The case was taken up by…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

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/aditya-raheja-vs-heritage-marble-pvt-ltd-anr-ca-f826b9fa