2017 (1) TMI 1413 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Default payment being disputed by the Corporate Debtor - corporate insolvency procedure - Held that - Though the petitioner filed all the invoices raised on the Debtor Company aggregating debt to ₹ 20,08,202, details of transaction on account of which debt fell due, default thereof and demand notice served upon the Debtor, for this Bench having noticed that notice of dispute raised by Respondent side has not been annexed to the CP, this Bench hereby directed to furnish the documents as prescribed u/s. 9 of the I&BP Code. In compliance of it, the Petitioner filed the notice of dispute issued by the Corporate Debtor disclosing the corporate debtor disputing the claim made by the Petitioner. On perusal of this sub-section (5) of Section 9 of this Code, it is evident that notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. On perusal of this notice dated 27.12.2016 disputing the debt allegedly owed to the petitioner, this Bench, looking at the Corporate Debtor disputing the claim raised by the Petitioner in this CP, hereby holds that the default payment being disputed by the Corporate Debtor, for the petitioner has admitted that the notice of dispute dated 27th December 2016 has been received by the operational creditor, the claim made by the Petitioner is hit by Section (9) (5) (ii) (d) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, hence this Petition is hereby rejected.

Summary

Issues: Operational Creditor Petition for unpaid invoices.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Claim by the Petitioner: The Petitioner, a software company, filed an Operational Creditor Petition against the Debtor Company for non-payment of invoices totaling &8377; 20,08,202 along with interest at 18% p.a. The invoices were for services provided in relation to a tele-voting campaign for a dance reality show on Star TV, as per Purchase Orders issued by the Debtor.

2. Services Rendered: The Petitioner developed a software application for tele-voting through toll-numbers based on the POs issued by the Debtor. Monthly invoices were raised for the usage generated by the campaign, including toll-free numbers rentals and Primary Rate Interface Rental, which remained outstanding and payable by the Debtor.

3. Dispute Raised by Debtor: The Debtor disputed the claim made by the Petitioner by filing a notice of dispute as required under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The notice of dispute dated 27.12.2016 was received by the Petitioner, indicating a disagreement regarding the debt allegedly owed.

4. Legal Analysis: The Bench considered the notice of dispute and the fact that the Debtor contested the claim raised by the Petitioner. As per Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, since the default payment was disputed by the Debtor and the notice of dispute was acknowledged by the Petitioner, the claim made by the Petitioner was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, the Petition was rejected by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key aspects of the case, including the nature of the claim, services provided, dispute raised by the Debtor, and the legal interpretation leading to the rejection of the Petition.