This Company Appeal challenges the order dated December 20, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, which rejected the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Respondent. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority erroneously held that pre-existing disputes existed between the parties. The Appellant argued that the Respondent raised a false dispute after receiving demand notices. The Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the Appellant failed to maintain the desired progress of the works under the Sub-Contracts, leading to the imposition of liquidated damages and other adverse actions.
Mr. Battula Anjaneyulu (Appellant) filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against DBM Geotechnics & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Appellant claimed that the Respondent owed Rs. 14,62,18,995/- for work done, including marine piling, labor supply, and cage fabrication. The Appellant raised R.A. bills and invoices, and the Respondent made part payments totaling approximately Rs. 28 crores out of a total of Rs. 43 crores. The Respondent allegedly reassured the Appellant about releasing payments and admitted financial difficulties in emails dated May 8, 2012, and December 26, 2014. The Appellant sent repeated reminders to the Respondent. The Respondent issued 13 demand notices on May 10, 2017. The Respondent filed Summary Suit
…Sign in to view the parties.
13 demand notices (Form…
The demand notices were…
This Company Appeal challenges the order dated December 20, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, which rejected the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Respondent. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority erroneously held that pre-existing disputes existed between the parties. The Appellant argued that the Respondent raised a false dispute after receiving demand notices. The Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the Appellant failed to maintain the desired progress of the works under the Sub-Contracts, leading to the imposition of liquidated damages and other adverse actions.
Mr. Battula Anjaneyulu (Appellant) filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against DBM Geotechnics & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Appellant claimed that the Respondent owed Rs. 14,62,18,995/- for work done, including marine piling, labor supply, and cage fabrication. The Appellant raised R.A. bills and invoices, and the Respondent made part payments totaling approximately Rs. 28 crores out of a total of Rs. 43 crores. The Respondent allegedly reassured the Appellant about releasing payments and admitted financial difficulties in emails dated May 8, 2012, and December 26, 2014. The Appellant sent repeated reminders to the Respondent. The Respondent issued 13 demand notices on May 10, 2017. The Respondent filed Summary Suit
…13 demand notices (Form…
The demand notices were…