Akshaya Engineering Works Private Ltd. 602 B, Vaibhav Giri, Siddhanchal Phase I, Off. Pokhran Road, Near Vasant Vihar, Thane 400 601, Maharashtra ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra with Ms. Poorva Garg, Ms. Lavanya Pathak, Mr. Abhay Sinha and Mr. Saswat Patnaik, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Sarkar, Mr. Hardik Jain, Mr. Rustam Chaudhuri and Mr. Kushagra Goyal, Advocates. JUDGMENT (Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 17.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai BenchV) in C.P. (IB) No. 533/MB/2022. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Section 9 application filed by the Appellant Operational Creditor and admitted the Corporate Debtor the rigours of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP" in short). Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant. 2. Coming to the brief factual matrix of the case at hand, we notice that the Corporate DebtorPravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. had been awarded two contracts by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ("MSEDCL" in short) on 07.03.2018. While one contract was for supply of equipment and material for which an Agreement for Supply was entered into for an amount of Rs 33.33 Cr., the second contract was for installation of plant and equipment for which an Agreement for Services was entered into for an amount of Rs 9 Cr. In terms of the two contracts, the project was to be completed within a span of 18 months. The contracts allowed the Corporate Debtor to subcontract the works to another party. The AppellantCorporate Debtor subcontracted the work to Akshaya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Operational Creditor. The Appellant had awarded two Letters of Award ("LoA" in short) in favour of the Operational CreditorRespondent on 07.7.2018 which culminated into two contracts viz. Contract Agreement for Services and Contract Agreement for Supply which were both dated 07.07.2018. Prior to subcontracting the work by the Corporate Debtor, the MSEDCL had issued two Notices to Correct on 09.04.2018 and 19.05.2018 on the Corporate Debtor for delay in execution of work. Pursuant to the subcontract, the Operational Creditor claimed to have provided the services/supplies in terms Page 2 of 21 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1457 of 2023 of the Contract Agreements and thereafter raised 17 invoices against which the Corporate Debtor purportedly made only partial payment. As the residual payments were not forthcoming, the Operational Creditor sent a Demand Notice dated 14.12.2021 under Section 8 of the IBC to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor replied to the Demand Notice on 25.02.2022. Since the default continued, the Operational Creditor filed the Section 9 application on 16.03.2022 for an outstanding debt of Rs 1.54 Cr. including interest. Holding that the Operational Creditor had successfully demonstrated the existence of debt and default with no preexisting dispute between the parties, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 9 application vide impugned order dated 17.10.2023. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Authorised Representative of the Corporate Debtor 3. Making his submissions, Shri Gaurav Mitra, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the outstanding dues claimed by the Operational Creditor of Rs 1.54 Cr. is disputed being neither due nor payable. It was submitted that the Contract Agreements for supply and services which was entered into by the Appellant