# In the matter of Gammon India Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2023-11-09. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLT-00793. The case involves a petition filed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Krushna Pradhan, an operational creditor,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 9 Nov 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLT-00793
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/gammon-india-limited-07acf9ec

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a petition filed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Krushna Pradhan, an operational creditor, against Gammon India Limited, the corporate debtor, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The operational creditor sought to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to an alleged default in payment for work done related to the Chennai Metro Rail Project. The corporate debtor refuted the claim, citing issues with the demand notice, lack of supporting documents, and disputes regarding the debt's validity and limitation.

## Facts

Mr. Ajay Kumar Krushna Pradhan, an individual civil contractor and labour supplier (Operational Creditor), filed a petition against Gammon India Limited (Corporate Debtor), a public limited company engaged in civil engineering, design, and construction. The Operational Creditor claimed a default of INR 15,26,964/- related to invoices for supplying labour for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. The initial default amount claimed was Rs.11,88,299 as of 2015-11-08, with additional interest calculated until 2017-06-07. The Corporate Debtor allegedly retained 5% of the amount towards retention money. The Corporate Debtor issued an undated balance confirmation letter acknowledging a payable amount. The Corporate Debtor made a part payment of INR 81,000/-, leaving a balance of

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Operational Creditor's demand notice complied with the requirements of Section 8 of the …

**Ratio:** Section 8 of the IBC read with Rule 5(1) of the Application to Adjudicating Authority

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the demand notice issued by the Operational Creditor did not

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 8 and Rule 5(1) strictly, emphasizing the need

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by finding that the demand notice was

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** ANIL RAJ C…; Kuldip Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Ajay Kumar…
- **Respondents:** Gammon India…
- **Advocates:** Reshant…; P.G. Sa…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2015-07-13 — Contract Term…**: The Corporate Debtor's contract with…
- **2015-08-11 — Initial Defau…**: The Operational Creditor claimed an amount of Rs.11,88,299/- was in default as of this…

## 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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/gammon-india-limited-07acf9ec