# In the matter of Vinod Mittal Vs. Rays Power Experts & Anr. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 851 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-11-18. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00122. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Nov 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00122
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vinod-mittal-vs-rays-power-experts-anr-ca-52bba42f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench, which admitted a Section 9 application filed by Rays Power Experts Private Limited (Operational Creditor) against Siwana Solar Power Project Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant, Vinod Mittal, a shareholder/director of the Corporate Debtor, filed the appeal, arguing that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties regarding the installation and commissioning of a solar power project.

## Facts

Rays Power Experts Private Limited (Operational Creditor) filed CP (IB) No.169/Chd/Hry/2018 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Siwana Solar Power Project Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The application was admitted on 26th July, 2019. The Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor had awarded a work order for the supply, commissioning, and service of a Solar Power Project. An “Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) Agreement” was executed on 1st May, 2014. The Operational Creditor received part payment but claimed default. A Section 8 notice was issued on 8th March, 2018, and served on 13th March, 2018. The Operational Creditor claimed no reply to the demand notice and no dispute of unpaid operational debt. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the Section 9 application despite the …

**Ratio:** The existence of a pre-existing dispute between the operational creditor and the

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the correspondence between the parties clearly indicated the

…

**Interpretation:** The presence of a genuine dispute, even if not fully adjudicated, prevents the

…

**Application:** In this case, the court found that the e-mails and other documents presented by

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Kanthi Na…; +2 more
- **Appellants:** Vinod M…
- **Respondents:** Siwana Solar…; Rays Power…
- **Advocates:** Raju Ramach…; Arun Kath…; +8 more

## Timeline

- **2014-05-01 — EPC Agre…**: Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC)…
- **2015-04-19 — Certificate of…**: Certificate of Appreciation was…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8 — Insolvency resolution by operational creditor](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-8)

---

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/vinod-mittal-vs-rays-power-experts-anr-ca-52bba42f