SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Srinivasa Reddy Velagala – Appellant
Versus
Sravanthi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 876 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2026
JUDGMENT :
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -
INDEX
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
|
| i. Submissions on behalf of the appellant |
|
| ii. Submissions on behalf of the respondent |
| C. | ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED |
| D. | ANALYSIS |
|
| (i) Subsistence of the EPC contract |
|
| (ii) Amount claimed by the respondent is operational debt |
|
| (iii) Pre-existing dispute between the parties |
|
| (iv) Respondent’s claim is barred by limitation |
| E. | DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED |
|
| I. Whether the EPC contract entered into by and between the appellant and respondent was frustrated by the efflux of time? |
|
| I. Whether the monies claimed by the respondent in the application under Section 9 of the IBC constitute ‘operational debt’ as defined under Section 5(21) of the IBC? |
|
| II. Whether there existed a prior dispute in respect of the claims of respondent? |
|
| III. Whether the application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the IBC was time-barred in respect of the dues amounting to ‘operational debt’? |
| F. | CONCLUSION |
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 188 of 2020, preferred by the appellant herein against the admission of the insolvency application filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), by which the NCLAT affirmed the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Amravati Bench (“NCLT”) admitting the Section 9 application and initiating insolvency proceedings against the appellant herein.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The appellant herein (the corporate debtor) had invited an International Competitive Bid by advertisement dated 13.12.2010, for setting up a 225 MW gas based combined cycle Power Station at Bikkavolu, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The respondent herein (the original petitioner before the NCLT), i.e., the operational creditor, was awarded the contract for execution of the aforesaid project as it submitted the lowest bid. The appellant issued the Letter of Award dated 24.12.2010 (the “LOA”) to the respondent for an amount of Rs. 827 crore. The parties subsequently entered into a contract for Engineering Procurement and Construction (“EPC agreement” / “EPC contract”) dated 09.02.2011. It was decided amongst the parties that the EPC contract was supposed to be completed in 14 months. It was mutually agreed between the parties that any disputes arising out of the EPC Agreement shall be referred to arbitration.
4. The EPC agreement enumerated several obligations and conditions for payment. The terms of payment in the EPC agreement signed between the parties is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Appendix – B
TERMS OF PAYMENT
SUPPLY OF EQUIPMENT
| Sl. No. | Milestone | Payment |
| 1 | Initial Advance Payment | 10% of Contract Price against Corporate Guarantee |
| 2 | Payment against ordering major equipment; a) Against ordering of GTGs b) Against ordering of STG c) Against ordering of HRSGs d) Against ordering of CT / ACC | 5% of Contract Price |
| 3 | Payment against release of advances a) Against release of advance of GTGs b) Against release of advance of STG c) Against release of advance of HRSGs d) Against release of advance of CT / ACC | 5% of Contract Price |
| 4 | Payment against Billing Break-up (BBU) | 70% of the contract price shall be paid as per agreed billing break up. |
| 5 | Payment on Commissioning | 5% payment shall be made on Commissioning in Open Cycle or 45 days of readiness of facilities and against submission of performance corporate guarantee for 5% of the contrac |
Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd.
Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal
Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd.
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Limited, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 353 [Paras 24
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.