AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority('NCLT') Jaipur Bench in CP No.(IB) No. 90/9/JPR/2018 by which an application u/s 9 of the 'Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code', 2016 (IBC) by the Appellant has been rejected.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent has appointed the Appellant as 'Architect' for his project by 'Work Order' dated 08.07.2015. The Appellant has continued with his 'Work Order' and there were certain issues raised by the 'Corporate Debtor' by issuing e.mails dated 13.06.2016 and 01.01.2018.
The revised 'Work Order' is claimed to have been issued in favour of the Appellant on 01.02.2017. Certain invoices were sent by the Appellant for payment after receipt of which issues were raised by the 'Corporate Debtor'.
Notice u/s 8 was issued by the Appellant dated 17.09.2018 which was replied on 29.09.2018. In the reply to the Section 8 notice, the 'Corporate Debtor' submitted that there was pre-existing dispute with the Appellant and the application u/s 9 need not be entertained. The 'Adjudicating Authority' by the impugned order has rejected the application.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the dispute raised by the Respondent in reply to the Section 8 notice was the only dispute's sake and there was no dispute raised earlier. In view of the revised work order issued in 2017, the Appellant has completed his work and he was entitled for his fee and the present was not a case for rejecting the application u/s 9.
We have considered the submission and perused the record. The Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application has made the following observations in paragraph 25 of the judgement:-
"25. In the instant matter the Corporate Debtor had raised the existence of dispute with respect to issue of service in reply to the demand notice and reiterated the same issues and contentions in reply to the instant Application. It is an undisputed fact that Applicant has been appointed under a Work Order dated 08.07.2015. The Respondent has not disputed the copy of approval letter dated 05.11.2015 issued by Urban Improvement Trust, Kota which is placed on record by the Applicant. Per contra copy of the emails annexed by the Respondent shows that there was delay on the part of the Applicant in providing required designs on time and the Respondent is not satisfied with the service. Also copy of the meeting minutes annexed by the respondent reflects that the services provided by the Appellant was unsatisfactory. Thus, the documents produced by the Respondent shows that there is pre-existence of dispute with respect to the providing of drawings on time and deficiency in service."
We have also looked into the reply of the 'Corporate Debtor' and the emails which were relied by the Respondent. Several deficiencies regarding work of the Appellant were pointed out even before issuance of Demand Notice u/s 8. In the reply to Section 8 notice also details regarding various issues and dispute raised with regard to work of the Appellant have been mentioned in detail.
We are of the view that the 'Adjudicating Authority' did not commit any error in rejecting the application u/s 9 being satisfied that there was pre-existing dispute regarding the work of the Appellant, hence, rejection of the application cannot be faulted. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.