# In the matter of Battula Anjaneyulu Vs. DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd. CA(AT)(Insolvency) No. 261-2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-07-02. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00490. This Company Appeal challenges the order dated December 20, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 2 Jul 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00490
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/battula-anjaneyulu-vs-dbm-geotechnics-construction-pvt-ltd-ca-6319b39b

## Summary

### Background

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.

## Facts

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

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in holding that pre-existing disputes existed between the …

**Ratio:** The existence of a pre-existing dispute is a bar to the admission of an application under

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the Respondent had taken steps for the imposition of a penalty for

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'pre-existing dispute' involves examining the

…

**Application:** In this case, the court applied the ratio by examining the emails,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; A.I.S. C…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Battula Anj…
- **Respondents:** DBM GEOTECHNICS &…

## Timeline

- **2017-05-10 — Demand Notice…**: 13 demand notices (Form 3)…
- **2017-05-12 — Demand Notices…**: The demand notices were duly…

## 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/battula-anjaneyulu-vs-dbm-geotechnics-construction-pvt-ltd-ca-6319b39b