# In the mater of Sarla Tantia Vs. Ramaanil Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. CA(AT)(Insolvency) 513-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-02-25. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00761. The Appellant, claiming to be an Operational Creditor, provided a portion of her premises to…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 25 Feb 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00761
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/in-the-mater-of-sarla-tantia-vs-ramaanil-hotels-resorts-pvt-ltd-ca-637b6110

## Summary

### Background

The Appellant, claiming to be an Operational Creditor, provided a portion of her premises to the Respondent under a Leave and License Agreement. A dispute arose regarding the rate of rent, with the Respondent defaulting on payments. The Appellant issued a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), but the Respondent did not respond. The Appellant then filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, which was rejected on the grounds that a pre-existing dispute existed regarding the rate of rent. The Appellant then filed an appeal against the order of rejection.

## Facts

Sarla Tantia, the Appellant (Operational Creditor), leased a portion of her premises to Ramaanil Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the Respondent (Corporate Debtor), under a Leave and License Agreement executed on January 1, 2016. The agreement stipulated a license fee of Rs.88 per sq. ft. per month, calculated on the 'super built up area' of 2281 sq. ft. The Respondent defaulted on rent payments, leading the Appellant to issue a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC on January 1, 2018, which was served on January 2, 2018. The Respondent did not respond to the notice. The Appellant then filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, citing a pre-existing dispute regarding the rate of rent. The Respondent had

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a pre-existing dispute existed between the Appellant (Operational Creditor) and the …

**Ratio:** The existence of a genuine and plausible dispute, not a patently feeble legal argument or

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Respondent had acted upon the Leave and License Agreement by

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the provisions of Section 9 of the IBC in light of the

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts of the case, finding that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Sarla T…
- **Respondents:** Ramaanil Hotels &…

## Timeline

- **2016-01-01 — Leave and License…**: Leave and License Agreement executed between Sarla Tantia and Ramaanil Hotels & Resorts…
- **2016-01-01 — License Fee…**: Ramaanil Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. paid license fee from January 2016 to November 2016…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8(1) — Insolvency resolution by operational creditor](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-8)

---

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/in-the-mater-of-sarla-tantia-vs-ramaanil-hotels-resorts-pvt-ltd-ca-637b6110