The appeal was filed against the order dated 13.01.2023, by which the application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant was rejected. The Appellant contended that there was acknowledgment by the Respondent via email dated 25.06.2019, indicating that the application was not time-barred and that the total amount of default exceeded the threshold limit. The email dated 25.06.2019 served as the basis of the Appellant's submission.
Hydro Care Fluid Power Systems (Appellant) filed an appeal against Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (Respondent) challenging the rejection of their Section 9 application by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant claimed that an email from the Respondent dated 25.06.2019 acknowledged the debt and thus the application was not time-barred. The email indicated that payment of Rs.48,61,971/- would be made upon receipt of a full and final claim. However, the Appellant did not submit a full and final claim after the email and filed the Section 9 application in 2022, more than two years later. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, stating it was time-barred, as it related to invoices from 2010 to 2013. The Appellant argued that a deduction of Rs.22,77,000/- in the
…Sign in to view the parties.
Respondent sent an email acknowledging a debt…
Appellant filed a Section 9 application, which…
The appeal was filed against the order dated 13.01.2023, by which the application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant was rejected. The Appellant contended that there was acknowledgment by the Respondent via email dated 25.06.2019, indicating that the application was not time-barred and that the total amount of default exceeded the threshold limit. The email dated 25.06.2019 served as the basis of the Appellant's submission.
Hydro Care Fluid Power Systems (Appellant) filed an appeal against Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (Respondent) challenging the rejection of their Section 9 application by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant claimed that an email from the Respondent dated 25.06.2019 acknowledged the debt and thus the application was not time-barred. The email indicated that payment of Rs.48,61,971/- would be made upon receipt of a full and final claim. However, the Appellant did not submit a full and final claim after the email and filed the Section 9 application in 2022, more than two years later. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, stating it was time-barred, as it related to invoices from 2010 to 2013. The Appellant argued that a deduction of Rs.22,77,000/- in the
…Respondent sent an email acknowledging a debt…
Appellant filed a Section 9 application, which…