AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
31.01.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2024 by which Adjudicating Authority has rejected Section 9 application filed by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has held that there was pre-existing dispute between the parties and Adjudicating Authority has referred to the emails of the year 2017 in paragraph-8 and 9 of the order and has come to the conclusion that sequence of the communication indicate that there was pre-existing dispute and substantial dispute between the applicant prior to issue a demand notice dated 09.04.2019.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was settlement between parties dated 10.05.2019 and 26.11.2019 where the operational creditor accepted to make payment of agreed amount Rs.1,50,32,913/-. Counsel for the respondent submits that payments towards the settlement have been made. Counsel for the appellant submits that some payments are still due.
We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records. The question as to whether as per settlement entire payment has been made or some payments are due is not the issue which can be gone into in Section 9 application. When Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that there was substantial pre-existing dispute between the parties much before issuance of demand notice dated 09.04.2019, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not entertaining the Section 9 application. Thus, we do not find any error in the order of Adjudicating Authority dismissing the Section 9 application. We however make it clear that it shall be open for the appellant to take such remedies as available in law.
Hence, Appeal is dismissed.