# In the matter of Rishabh Infra Through Hari Mohan Gupta vs. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-11-04. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00127. The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 2024-07-12, which…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 Nov 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00127
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rishabh-infra-through-hari-mohan-gupta-vs-sadbhav-engineering-ltd-11254f58

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 2024-07-12, which rejected the Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor claimed an amount of Rs. 2,61,24,020, including interest of Rs. 72,72,659. The Adjudicating Authority noted that Rs. 1,88,51,361 had been paid towards the principal amount, leading to the rejection of the Section 9 application.

## Facts

Rishabh Infra filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority that rejected its Section 9 application under the IBC. The claim included a principal amount and interest totaling Rs. 2,61,24,020. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application because Rs. 1,88,51,361 had already been paid towards the principal. Rishabh Infra argued that there was no settlement and that the work order stipulated interest at 24%. Sadbhav Engineering, the respondent, contended that there was no agreement for interest payment. The work order, dated 2018-12-11, contained a clause for monthly billing and payment but did not explicitly mention interest. The invoices sent by Rishabh Infra included interest, but there was no evidence that Sadbhav Engineering agreed to pay it.

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Section 9

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that since the principal amount had already been paid, there was no

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 9 of the IBC is that it allows for the initiation

…

**Application:** In this case, the Adjudicating Authority's decision was upheld because a

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Rishabh Infra…
- **Respondents:** Sadbhav Engineerin…

## Timeline

- **2024-07-12 — Order of Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Section 9 application filed by the Operational…
- **2018-12-11 — Work Orde…**: Date of the Work Order which contains Clause…

---

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/rishabh-infra-through-hari-mohan-gupta-vs-sadbhav-engineering-ltd-11254f58