2022 (10) TMI 928 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in Mobilox 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT has also observed that all that the Adjudicating Authority has to see at the stage of Admission is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the Dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact or a moonshine defence unsupported by tangible materials/evidence. It is pertinent to mention that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor are not spurious or plainly frivolous or vexatious - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Is there any Pre-existing dispute?

Analysis & Findings:

The case involves a Company Petition filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by an Operational Creditor against a Corporate Debtor for non-payment of dues amounting to Rs.8,17,678.54 along with interest. The Operational Creditor provided security services to the Corporate Debtor under a contractual agreement. The Operational Creditor claimed that despite multiple requests and assurances of payment from the Corporate Debtor, the outstanding dues remained unpaid. The Corporate Debtor, on the other hand, contended that the Operational Creditor's services were deficient and caused business losses due to poor quality and unethical practices. The Corporate Debtor raised pre-existing disputes regarding the services provided by the Operational Creditor through various emails and communications.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including emails from the Corporate Debtor raising issues with the services provided by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor relied on an email dated 21 May, 2019, where the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the outstanding dues, while the Corporate Debtor claimed the email was fraudulent and not authorized. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents such as Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software to emphasize the importance of pre-existing disputes for the initiation of insolvency proceedings. It was noted that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor were not frivolous, and hence, the petition was dismissed. The Corporate Debtor was advised to seek other legal remedies available to address the payment dispute.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition, emphasizing the significance of genuine pre-existing disputes and the need for further investigation into plausible contentions. The Corporate Debtor was granted the liberty to explore alternative legal avenues for resolution.