Bikki Raveendra Babu, Member - (1.) Deep Constructions Co., through its Partner, Shri Rameshbhai Naranbhai Sorathia, filed this Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ["the Code" for short] read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 with a request to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of Balaji Heavy Lifters Private Limited, styling it as 'Corporate Debtor'.
(2.) The Petitioner is engaged in construction work and is a Provider of construction related services to the Respondent since 2013. In due course of their business Petitioner carried out construction work and rendered roofing, tiling and masonry services at the site and premises of the Respondent Company; the scope of work that was carried out included the construction of godowns and external development work; and Petitioner carried out the work between the year 2013 and July 2016. The total principal amount due for the work done is Rs. 1,42,38,334/-. Petitioner raised several invoices upon the Respondent for the construction and other works. Those invoices were duly received by the Respondent and acknowledged. Respondent also accepted the ledger account showing the balance amounts due between the parties between the year 2013 and 31st March, 2016. Respondent acknowledged the liability to pay outstanding debt by way of signed confirmation of balance dated 31.3.2015 and 31.3.2016. Petitioner carried out the construction of godown along with external development work including cladding and masonry work. The total amount receivable is Rs. 1,42,38,334/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective dates of invoice and debit note till the date of realisation. Inspite of repeated reminders and requests Respondent did not pay the outstanding amount. Petitioner got issued Demand Notice dated 10.7.2017 in Form-3 to the Respondent. Respondent did not give any notice of dispute. No dispute was ever raised by the Respondent in respect of the outstanding amount regarding the services or the quality of construction. The Registered Office of the Respondent is situated in Gandhidham, Kutch. i
(3.) Respondent filed following objections; 3.1. The Partner who filed the Petition has no proper authorization to file the Petition on behalf of the partnership firm. The Petitioner did not mention the date of default; Petitioner has not filed Working for Computation of amount and days of default. Respondent denied the execution of balance confirmation letters. Respondent complained that the quality of construction made by the Operational Creditor is of low quality and therefore Respondent paid only Rs. 1,15,00,000 till date and not paid the balance amount. According to the Respondent there is a pre-existing dispute of quality r of construction being of inferior quality and hence payment of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- only paid. Respondent could not give notice because settlement took place after the issuance of demand notice. 3.2. Respondent stated that Petitioner has not disclosed the date of default. Petitioner has not attached the Working for Computation of the amount and days of default in tabular form. It is stated by the Corporate Debtor that the quality of construction made by the Operational Creditor is of low quality and hence the Corporate Debtor has made payment of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- only till the date of Petition and not made any further payment and that the claim of Operational Creditor is neither admitted nor accepted by the Corporate Debtor. 3.3. The first and foremost objection raised is, there is no proper authorization to file this Petition on behalf of the partnership firm. To answer the said objection, Petitioner filed copy of the Letter of Authority dated 2.8.2017 which is in favour of Shri Rameshbhai Naranbhai Sorathia signed on behalf of all the partners of Petitioner partnership firm. Petitioner also filed copy of the Partnership Deed. These two documents together clearly establish that Mr. Rameshbhai Naranbhai Sorathia is authorized to file this Petition on behalf of the Petitioner Partnership Firm. Therefore, the objection of the Respondent on this aspect is not sustainable. 3.4. The second objection raised is, the date of default has not been disclosed in the Petition and the Petitioner did not attach the Working for Computation of the amount and dates of default in tabular form. The Petitioner on 5th December, 2017 also filed copy of the Form-G issued by the Registrar of Firms and copy of the statement of outstanding dues. This satisfies the objection of the Respondent on this aspect. i 3.5. The grievance of the Corporate Debtor is that there is a pre-existing dispute, namely, the construction is of inferior quality and hence only payment as stipulated is paid.;