AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
17.10.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh by which application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant has been dismissed. Appellant has filed the Application under Section 9 claiming for amount of Rs. 72,78,246/-. The Adjudicating Authority rejected Section 9 Application relying settlement between the parties which took place on 28.09.2017. The Adjudicating Authority has noted the clause of settlement which state that no proceedings whether legal or otherwise shall be undertaken by operational creditor for the payment of amounts mentioned in this undertaking post acceptance of post-dated cheques.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that the invoice which was issued by the Appellant was dated 17.10.2017 and this invoice was subsequent to the settlement between the parties.
We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
The invoice which was claimed by the Appellant is invoice issued after the settlement, the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 10 has made following observations:-
“It is submitted by the Corporate Debtor that the invoices produced by the petitioner are of period where the work between the parties had stopped and the respondent had handed over the work site to the owner. The invoices raised or claimed are not supported by any documents. The petitioner had not paid the statutory taxes. Moreso, the ledger bills attached by petitioner provide sales invoices against which the various work contract receipts are mentioned as:- 1) invoice no. 032 for amount of Rs. 50,06,740 (dated 07.10.2017) for supply of work done at JW Marriot, Jaipur and works contract receipt is adjusted for Rs. 42,43,000 along with 18% GST of Rs. 7,63,740 2) invoice no. 034 for amount of Rs. 7,67,812 (dated 12.10.2017) for extra work at Sudha Cinepolis, Hyderabad and works contract receipt is adjusted for Rs. 6,50,688 along with 18% GST of Rs. 1,17,124 and 3) invoice no. 035 for amount of Rs. 15,03,064 (dated 03.11.2017) and works contract receipt is adjusted for Rs. 12,74,317 along with 18% GST of Rs. 2,29,377 are attached at Annexure A-8 of the petition.”
The Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the invoices produced by the petitioner are of period where the work between the parties had stopped and the respondent had handed over the work site to the owner. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that no claim for invoice could have been accepted.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it shall be open for the Appellant to take such remedy in law with regard to invoice claimed in Section 9 Application.
With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.