IBC Cannot Substitute a Recovery Forum: NCLAT

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

In the case of M/s Kuntal Construction Pvt Ltd vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd, the Appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 30th January 2020 by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, so as to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent or corporate debtor for an outstanding amount of Rs 14 89,966. 

Facts of the Case

The Appellant was engaged in the business of civil works. The respondent approached the Appellant for availing its services, and consequently, work orders dated 04.10.2011 and 14.10.2013 were issued for an amount of ₹47,50,000 and ₹2,07,00,000 respectively. Only partial payments were received from the respondent, and also post adjustment, the Appellant claimed that there was an outstanding payment of ₹14,89,967 and also included a retention amount of ₹6,74,247. 

Arguments Made by Appellant

The appellant stated that according to the mutual settlement letter dated 07.10.2015, the respondent had to pay a total sum of ₹1,21,73,545, but did not pay an outstanding amount of ₹14,89,964.  

Additionally, the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ignored the merits of the case since the bench acknowledged the letter dated 07.10,2015 but ignored the two issues involved in it. 

Arguments Made by Respondent

According to the respondent, the appellants never contended that the corporate debtor failed to did not disclose any patent illegality/perversity/misconduct to set aside the order of NCLT. It was contended by the respondent that the Insolvency Resolution Process is not a civil recovery court, and if any amount was to be paid to the Appellant must be contested before the Arbitration/Civil Courts.

The respondent claimed that the Appellant concealed the facts wherein it neither disclosed nor filed a copy of the full and final settlement letter dated 07.10.2015. The Appellant also concealed the fact wherein it failed to state that the respondent sent a reply dated 05.12.2018 to the Appellant.

The respondent clarified that the appellant was notified about the retention money of ₹6,74,247, which was duly adjusted towards the defects liability of the respondent. 

The Adjudicating Authority, also in its judgment, clearly stated that the respondent was aware of the intimation of the retention, and the same was also clarified by the Appellant to the respondent. 

Court’s Analysis

The Tribunal made the following observations:

  • The email correspondences clearly showed that the Appellant was well aware of the fact that retention money was adjusted on accounts of the defect in the Work Order.
  • IBC is not intended to substitute a recovery forum, and whenever there is any real expenditure, then IBC provisions cannot be invoked. 
  • There was a dispute existing before the issuance of Section 8 of IBC. Therefore the insolvency proceedings cannot be invoked.
  • Whether the corporate debtor was entitled to adjust the retention amount was a disputed question and must be decided by the appropriate forum.

Court’s Judgment

There was no merit to interfere in the impugned order duly passed by National Company Law Tribunal. Hence the appeal was dismissed with no order for costs. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -