9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1655 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor defaulted in making repayment - existence of dispute or not - Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The operational creditor has not disclosed the full material particulars in their application filed u/s 9 before us. The correspondence between the parties since July, 2016 regarding disputes of billing between them, payment of debit notes and the Court cases has not been disclosed by the applicant. These details were filed by the Corporate Debtor by way of a written submission. It is apparent that there is a long-standing dispute between the parties, as per the provisions of section 8(2)(a) of the IBC. The Operational Creditor has not filed any postal receipt to show the date on which the notice u/s 8 dated 30.12.2017 was posted or received by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor, on the other hand, has claimed before us, that the said notice was received by them on 09/10th of January, 2018 and they had replied to it on 16.01.2018. The present petition was filed on 17.08.2018, more than six months after receipt of the said reply - As the Corporate Debtor s reply dated 16.01.2018, had clear indication of dispute, the present petition filed by the applicant is not admissible, as per section 9(1). The application is dismissed as it is not admissible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Issues:
Initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Correction in cause title of the petition; Operational debt particulars; Dispute over outstanding amount; Defects in demand notice under IBC; Admissibility of the application under IBC. Initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: The Operational Creditor filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Corporate Debtor, citing a default amount of ?1,81,00,000 with interest. The Operational Creditor provided transportation services to the Corporate Debtor from 2013 to September 2017, with the last payment made in August 2017. The Corporate Debtor disputed the outstanding amount, citing excessive invoicing by the Operational Creditor and filed a suit for recovery in the High Court of Delhi. Correction in Cause Title: The Operational Creditor sought correction in the cause title of the petition, attributing the error to a typographical mistake. The correct cause title was stated to be Beacon Courier and Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. v. Trim India Pvt. Ltd. Operational Debt Particulars: The application detailed the operational debt of ?2,08,15,000, including interest, arising from a quotation agreement for transport services. The Operational Creditor issued a notice under IBC, to which the Corporate Debtor replied denying any outstanding amount and requesting complete bills for verification. Dispute Over Outstanding Amount: The Corporate Debtor claimed that the Operational Creditor owed them ?3,15,99,172, including various charges and costs. The Corporate Debtor alleged overcharging by the Operational Creditor and filed a suit for recovery and a criminal complaint against the Operational Creditor's officials. Defects in Demand Notice under IBC: The Corporate Debtor pointed out defects in the demand notice sent by the Operational Creditor under IBC, including lack of signature by an authorized representative and missing necessary documents. The Corporate Debtor received the notice in January 2018 and replied disputing the outstanding amount. Admissibility of Application under IBC: The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the Operational Creditor failed to disclose material particulars, including the ongoing dispute and court cases between the parties. The Tribunal found that a dispute existed as per the Corporate Debtor's reply, rendering the application inadmissible under Section 9(1) of the IBC. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, clarifying that the decision does not prejudice the rights of the Applicants before any other forum. The judgment highlighted the importance of disclosing material particulars and the existence of a dispute in insolvency proceedings.
|
