AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is preferred by a suspended director of the corporate debtor who challenges the Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 08.12.2025 in C.P. (IB)/99(MB)2025 admitting the CD to CIRP under Section 9, IBC.
The facts fall within narrow compass. For the work which the respondent has done at the instance of the appellant, it has raised as many as 56 invoices. The total value of these invoices is Rs.7,29,59,159 out of which the GST component is Rs.1,11,29,363/-. Of the 56 invoices so raised, the respondent has raised tax invoices for 22 invoices. As to the rest, no tax invoices were raised.
Since the appellant defaulted in paying this money, both the appellant and the respondent entered into a ‘Vendor Settlement Agreement’. This was dated 29.03.2022. In this agreement, the appellant had admitted to his liability and also agreed to pay the sum in 8 tranches of which the first tranche of Rs.49,25,000/- was paid vide a cheque dated 18.08.2021. the second tranche and the third tranche were respectively required to be honoured in April, 2022 and May, 2022. Payment of 4 to 8 tranches were required to be paid between June and December, 2022. Since the obligation undertaken under the Vendor Settlement Agreement was not honoured, the respondent issued a notice dated 10.04.2024 under Section 8, IBC. The CD issued its reply dated 29.05.2024 raising a dispute regarding delay in performing the work contract by the respondent and that the CD was negotiating with the respondent to resolve all the differences amicably. This apart, the CD also alleged that the respondent has not raised tax invoices.
In these circumstances, the respondent had filed his petition under Section 9 and this was contested by the CD along the lines it had indicated in its reply to Section 8 notice.
And, the Adjudicating Authority eventually found merit in the contention of the respondent, allowed its petition and admitted the CD to CIRP. This is now under challenge.
Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant laid considerable thrust on the point that the appellant did not make payment since the tax invoices were not raised. We, however, are not impressed with this statement. On 29.03.2022, when both the appellant and the first respondent had entered into the Vendor Settlement Agreement, it brings to an end whatever differences might have been there earlier. This agreement provides for schedule for payment of the invoice amount to the first respondent. And the appellant is not able to show any new difference that has arisen after 29.03.2022. Indeed, only in its reply to Section 8 Notice, the appellant has raised the issues of certain delay in the performance of contract. Set in the context, this difference looks artificial. In conclusion, we do not find any merit. The appeal is Dismissed.
I.A. No.1845 of 2026 is closed.