2018 (7) TMI 2046 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Admissibility of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor - existence of dispute - HELD THAT - There existed a dispute relating to quality of products. The other question required to be determine is that whether said dispute was settled between the parties or not, is a matter which cannot be decided. In a petition under Section 9 of I B Code it can be decided only by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application under Section 9. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the Appellant to move before an appropriate forum for appropriate relief. In such case, competent court may decide the claim uninfluenced by order passed by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Appellate Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Application under Section 9 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process rejected due to the existence of a dispute regarding quality claim settlement.

Analysis:
The Appellant, a company, filed an application under Section 9 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent, another company. The National Company Law Tribunal rejected the claim based on the existence of a dispute. The dispute arose from a letter sent by the Respondent claiming amounts for various issues, including quality claims for inferior material supplied. The Appellant responded to this letter, indicating settlement of the claim, which was acknowledged by the Respondent. However, the Respondent denied that the claim was settled, leading to a disagreement between the parties.

The main contention revolved around whether the dispute regarding the quality of products was actually settled between the parties. The Appellate Tribunal found that while a dispute existed, the resolution of this dispute was uncertain. The Tribunal clarified that such determinations should be made by a court of competent jurisdiction and not in a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the application under Section 9 was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant was advised to seek appropriate relief from the appropriate forum, emphasizing that the competent court should decide on the claim independently of the previous orders.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, with no costs imposed on either party. The judgment highlighted the importance of resolving disputes through the appropriate legal channels and courts of competent jurisdiction, especially in matters related to insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.