# In the matter of Mr. Anil J. Nemaavarkar Vs. M/s. Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd. Now Known as M/s. Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 330 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-04-05. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00553. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 5 Apr 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00553
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mr-anil-j-nemaavarkar-vs-ms-kumar-builders-mumbai-realty-pvt-ltd-now-known-as-ms-02b270af

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) on 09.12.2021, which rejected the Appellant's application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant claimed to be an Operational Creditor and had filed the application for a debt of Rs. 64,44,2706.00/- including interest. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application due to a 'pre-existing dispute' between the parties.

## Facts

Mr. Anil J. Nemaavarkar, the Appellant, claimed to be an Operational Creditor of M/s. Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s. Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.), the Respondent. The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process against the Respondent for a debt of Rs. 64,44,2706.00/- including interest. The Appellant claimed to be appointed Vice-President (Coordination) by the Corporate Debtor on 3rd June, 2013, and his services were terminated on 4th June, 2016. Prior to filing the Section 9 application on 4th June, 2019, the Appellant had filed various complaints against the Corporate Debtor, including a police complaint dated 6th June,

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in dismissing the application under Section 9 of the …

**Ratio:** The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not intended to resolve disputes related to service

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the appellant had filed numerous complaints against the corporate

…

**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 by noting that the appellant's prior

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Alok Sriv…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Anil J. Nemaavarka…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Kumar…
- **Advocates:** Sidharth…; Ambar…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2013-06-03 — Appellant appointed by…**: Appellant claimed to be appointed…
- **2016-06-04 — Termination of…**: Appellant's services were…

## 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/mr-anil-j-nemaavarkar-vs-ms-kumar-builders-mumbai-realty-pvt-ltd-now-known-as-ms-02b270af