# In the matter of Ratnarup Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tamanna Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-08-01. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00324. Ratnarup Projects Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against the order dated 03.03.2023, where the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 1 Aug 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00324
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ratnarup-projects-pvt-ltd-vs-tamanna-hotels-pvt-ltd-9b979a9c

## Summary

### Background

Ratnarup Projects Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against the order dated 03.03.2023, where the Adjudicating Authority rejected their Section 9 application. The appellant's case is that they were given construction work, completed a substantial portion, and raised a bill, but payment was not made. The Corporate Debtor wanted to give the remaining work to another contractor, leading to an injunction suit filed by the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties, preventing the application's admission.

## Facts

Ratnarup Projects Pvt. Ltd. was assigned construction work and completed a significant portion. Upon raising the bill, the Corporate Debtor, Tamanna Hotels Pvt. Ltd., did not make the payment and intended to assign the remaining work to another contractor. Consequently, an injunction suit was filed by the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Section 9 application filed by Ratnarup Projects Pvt. Ltd., citing a pre-existing dispute between the parties. A suit was filed on 07.12.2018 to prevent the corporate debtor from assigning the remaining work to another contractor, which was before the demand notice issued on 10.10.2020. Cheques were dishonoured, leading to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Section 9 application filed by the …

**Ratio:** The existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties is a valid ground for

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the intention of the Corporate Debtor to assign the remaining

…

**Interpretation:** Section 9 of the IBC allows an operational creditor to initiate the corporate

…

**Application:** In this case, the court found that the injunction suit filed before the demand

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Ratnarup Projects…
- **Respondents:** Tamanna Hotels…

## Timeline

- **2018-12-07 — Injunction Su…**: A suit was filed to injunct the Corporate Debtor from giving remaining work to another…
- **2020-10-10 — Demand Notice…**: Demand Notice issued…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 138 — Discharge order](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-138)

---

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/ratnarup-projects-pvt-ltd-vs-tamanna-hotels-pvt-ltd-9b979a9c