- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th April, 2014.
(2.) The admitted facts are that the respondent-petitioner was appointed as sub-contractor by the appellant in whose favour work order has been issued by Steel Authority of India (In short known as SAIL). According to the respondent-petitioner, he raised bills on the appellant company for the supply made by him as well as work executed. So far as the balance amount to be paid, a notice dated 18th April,2013 came to be issued under section 434 of the Companies Act and a reply was sent on 14th May, 2013. So far as the claim is concerned, the appellant-company has denied the dues to be paid to the respondent-petitioner and on the other hand, the respondent-petitioner was responsible for this delay in execution of the work which consequently resulted in SAIL finding fault with the appellant-company. It is not in dispute that as per the agreement between the appellant-company and the SAIL, which came to be terminated by SAIL for the delay caused in execution of the works, it represents a composite contract so far as the appellant-company and respondent-petitioner. It relates to supply of electrical items and also execution of the work. In other words, the dispute between the SAIL and the appellant-company pertains to agreement between the appellant and the SAIL and so far as the dispute between the respondent-petitioner and the appellant-company, it pertains to altogether a different agreement between the parties.
(3.) On going through the records and also references made to the records by the learned Single Judge it is noticed that the initial claim was for Rs.21,63,662/-. But by virtue of a letter dated 28th June, 2011, according to the learned Judge, the petitioning creditor admitted the amount due as Rs.12,79,631. Apparently SAIL has already initiated arbitration proceeding against the appellant-company. The entire controversy revolves around whether there is categorical admission on the part of the appellant-company regarding the payment due to the respondent-petitioner.;