# In the matter of Hukum Singh Vs. Adaab Hotels Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 905 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-11-11. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00054. The appeal was filed against an order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 11 Nov 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00054
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/hukum-singh-vs-adaab-hotels-ltd-company-appeal-d79b4699

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed against an order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Bench IV. The application was filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’ in short) and was rejected by the impugned order. A notice under Section 8 was issued by the Applicant claiming dues to the extent of Rs.20,74,313/-. The Corporate Debtor replied on 19.08.2019, claiming liability towards Respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs.26,29,204.03 as on 31.03.2019. The reply also referred to a resolution dated 02.04.2018 where it was decided that no Director would be paid any salary and interest on deposits until the situation improved. The reply further stated that the Appellant was removed from

…

## Facts

Hukum Singh, the Appellant, filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), New Delhi, which rejected his application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Appellant had issued a notice under Section 8 claiming dues of Rs.20,74,313/-. Adaab Hotels Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, replied on 19.08.2019, claiming a liability towards Respondent No. 2 of Rs.26,29,204.03 as on 31.03.2019. The reply also referred to a resolution dated 02.04.2018, stating that no Director would be paid salary or interest on deposits until the situation improved, and that the Appellant was removed from directorship due to his actions. The Adjudicating Authority determined that a pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice was

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in holding that a pre-existing dispute existed prior …

**Ratio:** A pre-existing dispute bars the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC. The

…

**Reasoning:** The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 'Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs.

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'dispute' under the IBC includes any disagreement or

…

**Application:** In this case, the resolution for the Appellant's removal as Director and the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Jarat Kuma…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Hukum S…
- **Respondents:** Adaab Hotel…

## Timeline

- **2018-04-02 — Resolution…**: Resolution passed stating no Director would be paid salary and interest on deposits until…
- **2019-08-19 — Corporate Debto…**: Corporate Debtor replied to the notice, claiming liability towards Respondent No. 2 to…

## 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/hukum-singh-vs-adaab-hotels-ltd-company-appeal-d79b4699