IN RE Vs. ONE COAT PLASTER AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to set in motion the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) as contemplated under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in relation to one M/s. Ambience Private Limited (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Company') however described in the petition as Corporate Debtor'. Brief facts as can be discerned from the petition filed by the petitioners describing themselves as an "Operational Creditor" against the Company giving rise to the filing of the petition are as follows:-

(2.) Since the issues involved in both the Company Petitions are similar and concerning the company named as "Corporate Debtor', the matter is taken up together and disposed off as follows:

(3.) On 22.02.2017 we heard learned counsel for both the parties. The Counsel for the Operational Creditors/Petitioners took us through the typed set of documents filed along with the petitions. A perusal of the record shows that the work order placed by the company primarily relates to works contract predominantly concerning labour contract and the rate for the execution of the works contract seems to be fixed on square feet basis. Further it is seen that the bills/invoices raised by the petitioners annexed as Annexure C Colly' is computed on sq.feet basis for ascertaining the quantum of work done and the amount payable for carrying out the work. However when the Counsel for the Petitioners was asked as to whether the Company or its authorized representative or architect had certified the quantum of work done by the Petitioners in relation to the works contract awarded to them, no such document was produced wherein the quantum of work might have been certified or in relation to quality. This is the norm adopted in building contracts of considerable value which ordinarily constitute the basis for raising the bills. The engagement of the petitioners to execute the work cannot be denied in view of the work order placed by the Company which is further reinforced by payment in a sum of Rs. 25,68,917/- to the Petitioner in C.A. No. 07/PB/2017 and Rs. 7,83,746/-. However in relation to the balance amount claimed by the petitioners as due from the Company, we are unable to agree in view of lack of materials submitted before us by the Petitioners and also taking into consideration the fact that the debt sought to be fastened on the company has been vehemently disputed as is evident from the reply to the notice sent by the Company, which is dated 04.02.2017 but dispatched on 08.02.2017 to the counsel for the petitioners.