# In the matter of Sunjeet Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rashmi Metro Homes LLP

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-09-20. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00185. The appeal was filed against an order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 20 Sept 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00185
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sunjeet-communications-pvt-ltd-vs-rashmi-metro-homes-llp-a69bfbfa

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed against an order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which rejected the Appellant's Section 9 application as not maintainable. The Operational Creditor filed a Company Petition on 16.01.2021 under Section 9, claiming a principal amount of Rs.2,66,74,085/- along with interest. The Appellant claims that default was committed on 11.03.2017, and subsequently, the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 18.01.2018, allocating certain flats with a promise to deliver them. The Section 9 application was filed, claiming that the default from March 2017 was continuing, and the MOU was not implemented. Cheques issued were also not honored.

## Facts

The Operational Creditor, Sunjeet Communications Pvt. Ltd., filed a Company Petition on 16.01.2021 under Section 9 of the IBC, claiming a principal amount of Rs. 2,66,74,085/- along with interest. The default was claimed to have occurred on 11.03.2017. Subsequently, the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, Rashmi Metro Homes LLP, entered into an MOU on 18.01.2018, under which certain flats were allocated and promised to be delivered. The Section 9 application claimed that the default from March 2017 was continuing, and the MOU was not implemented. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, stating that the previous default dated 11.03.2017 did not survive due to the MOU. The Appellant contended that the MOU was an intermediate step to deal with the

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** An Adjudicating Authority commits an error if it rejects a Section 9 application without

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority failed to properly assess whether the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that an Adjudicating Authority must thoroughly examine

…

**Application:** In this case, the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Section 9

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Sunjeet Communicat…
- **Respondents:** Rashmi Metro…

## Timeline

- **2021-01-16 — Company Petiti…**: Operational Creditor filed Company Petition under Section 9 claiming principal amount of…
- **2017-03-11 — Default…**: The Appellant claims that…

---

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/sunjeet-communications-pvt-ltd-vs-rashmi-metro-homes-llp-a69bfbfa