# In the matter of Landmark Realty Vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd. CA(AT)(Ins) N. 25 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-01-10. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00548. The Appellant, Landmark Realty, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 10 Jan 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00548
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/landmark-realty-vs-siroya-developers-pvt-ltd-ca-694a7bb9

## Summary

### Background

The Appellant, Landmark Realty, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The rejection was based on the ground of the pre-existence of a dispute. A demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code was issued on January 19, 2019. The Corporate Debtor appeared and informed the Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant had filed a civil suit for recovery of money against the Corporate Debtor, being Suit No. 1149 of 2018, in the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai.

## Facts

Landmark Realty (Appellant) filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, rejected this application. The rejection was based on the pre-existence of a dispute. A demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code was issued on January 19, 2019. The Corporate Debtor informed the Adjudicating Authority that Landmark Realty had filed a civil suit (Suit No. 1149 of 2018) for recovery of money against the Corporate Debtor in the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai. The Appellant's counsel claimed the Respondent had admitted the claim. The money suit was filed by the Appellant against the Corporate Debtor prior to the demand notice dated January 19, 2019,

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the existence of a prior money suit filed by the Appellant against the Corporate Debtor …

**Ratio:** The existence of a pre-existing dispute, such as a pending money suit, can be a valid

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that since the Appellant had already filed a money suit against the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, in

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellant's prior filing of a money suit against the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Landmark…
- **Respondents:** Siroya Developers…

## Timeline

- **2018-01-01 — Civil Suit…**: Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 1149 of 2018 against the 'Corporate Debtor' in Bombay City…
- **2019-01-19 — Demand Notice…**: Demand Notice under Section 8(1)…

## 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/landmark-realty-vs-siroya-developers-pvt-ltd-ca-694a7bb9