ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. Respondent Present: For Appellant: Mr. Jayendra M. Shah, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Akshat Khare, Advocate. ORDER (Virtual Mode) 14.03.2022: Heard Shri Jayendra M. Shah, learned counsel for the Appellant and Shri Akshat Khare, learned counsel for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, Court No. 1 by which, application filed under Section 9 by the Appellant Operational Creditor has been dismissed. 2. The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'Operational Creditor') was issued two Work Orders by 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as 'FERNAS'/ 'FCIPL') on 16.05.2014 and 17.08.2016. The Corporate Debtor i.e. 'M/s ONGC Petro Additions Ltd.' issued Letter of Assurance dated 24.03.2015 and 02.09.2016 to the Operational Creditor assuring that all conditions of the contracts will be honoured and the Corporate Debtor will make payments directly to the Operational Creditor after receipt of invoice duly certified by FCIPL and EIL (Engineers India Ltd.). After 2 the aforesaid Letter of Assurance, certain payments were directly made to the Operational Creditor by the Corporate Debtor. Certain bills and invoices were raised by the Operational Creditor and the notice under Section 8 was issued by the Operational Creditor on 25.05.2018 demanding payment from the Corporate Debtor for works performed by the Operational Creditor to the extent of Rs.1,51,14,649/. 3. The Section 8 notice was replied by the Corporate Debtor denying the claim of the Operational Creditor. It was stated in the reply that the Corporate Debtor has decided to make direct payment to the Subcontractor/Vendors of FCIPL including the Operational Creditor for the works to be executed w.e.f. 01.09.2014 only with a view to get the work of the contract done smoothly in the interest of the Corporate Debtor and subject to methodology agreed between Corporate Debtor and FCIPL which includes certification of works done by Operational Creditor from FCIPL and EIL. In the reply all claims made by the Operational Creditor were refuted. The Appellant thereafter filed application under Section 9 claiming the payment from the Corporate Debtor for the amount indicated in the notice under Section 8. The reply was filed to Section 9 application by the Corporate Debtor refuting the claim of the Appellant. It was pleaded by the Corporate Debtor that all bills issued by the Operational Creditor which have been certified by FCIPL and EIL as per methodology indicated in the Assurance Letter have already been paid and there is no claim of the Operational Creditor received with regard to payment of bills which have been certified by FCIPL and EIL. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 585 of 2021 3 4. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing both the parties held that there was no privity of contract between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor, hence, the application cannot be admitted. In paras 6 and 7 of the order of the Adjudicating Authority following observations have been made: "6. From the perusal of the above, we find sufficient merit in the claims made by and on behalf of the alleged Corporate Debtor as these letters merely state that the payment due to the work done by the main contractor i.e. M.S FCIPL through the Operational Creditor would be made directly to the Operational Creditor. In our considered view, this is the real substance of these two letters. Further, this also requires various formalities to be completed before such payment could be released. We also find that the direct payments were to be made for the works to be executed w.e.f. 10.09.2014 only and this arrangement has been made to complete the balance pending work. We also find that the payment as per assurance can be made only when invoices are duly certified by the main contractor as well as Project Manager of M/s Engineers India Ltd. with the specific recommendation as to the amount which could be pa