# In the matter of Rahul Singhwal Vs. Sarvottam Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. CA(AT)(Insolvency) 21-2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-02-08. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00784. The case involves an appeal against the admission of an application under Section 9 of the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 8 Feb 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00784
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rahul-singhwal-vs-sarvottam-rolling-mills-70b89acf

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the admission of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process against M/s. Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Debtor). The application was filed by M/s. Sarvottam Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (Operational Creditor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench admitted the application via an order dated December 17, 2018. The appellant contested the admission, citing a pre-existing dispute regarding the supply of material, supported by an FIR. The appellant also argued that the Committee of Creditors had not been constituted.

## Facts

M/s. Sarvottam Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process against M/s. Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application on December 17, 2018. Rahul Singhwal, the appellant, challenged this admission, arguing that a pre-existing dispute existed regarding the supply of material, evidenced by an FIR. The appellant also pointed out that the Committee of Creditors had not been constituted. M/s. Sarvottam Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. accepted that the parties had settled the matter. The Resolution Professional also acknowledged that the Committee of Creditors had not been constituted before the settlement. The Resolution Professional

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** The existence of a 'pre-existing dispute' can be a ground for rejecting an application

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the appellant's submission that a pre-existing dispute existed,

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'pre-existing dispute' is crucial in determining the

…

**Application:** In this case, the appellant presented an FIR as evidence of a pre-existing

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Rahul Sin…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Panchsheel…; M/s. Sarvottam…

## Timeline

- **2018-12-17 — Impugned…**: Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitted the…
- **2019-02-08 — Respondent Filed…**: M/s. Sarvottam Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. filed an application under Section 9 of the…

## 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/rahul-singhwal-vs-sarvottam-rolling-mills-70b89acf