9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1276 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The instant petition is filed with an intention to recover the advance amount without adverting total circustamances of the case by simply denying that the Respondent failed to perform the monetary terms of Contract/agreement in question. The Respondent has placed sufficient evidence in support of their case showing there is an existing dispute with regard to the claim which cannot be thrown as mere untenable defence. It is settled position of law the Adjudicating Authority in summary proceedings initiated under code cannot enter into roving enquiry with disputed questions of facts. The Respondent on the contrary claiming for an amount of 10 Lakhs. Thus the Petitioner failed to make out any case to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and it filed with an intention to recover the alleged outstanding amount. It is settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount. Application dismissed.
Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 based on default amount and interest calculation dispute. Analysis: The case involved a petition filed by an Operational Creditor seeking to initiate CIRP against a Corporate Debtor for defaulting on an amount of ?5,00,000 along with interest at 18% p.a. The Operational Creditor alleged that the Corporate Debtor failed to submit a project report despite receiving an advance payment and multiple reminders. The Corporate Debtor, on the other hand, contended that a different payment agreement was in place, and they had fulfilled their obligations by submitting the project report as per the revised terms. The Respondent disputed the claim and asserted that the Petitioner owed them ?10,00,000 after deducting the advance amount. The Adjudicating Authority noted the existence of a dispute regarding the payment terms and project submission, emphasizing that the IBC is not intended for mere recovery of outstanding amounts. The Authority highlighted the need for an undisputed debt to initiate CIRP, as established in previous Supreme Court judgments. The Adjudicating Authority scrutinized the facts presented by both parties and concluded that the petition lacked merit. It was observed that the Petitioner's claim was based on recovering the advance amount without considering the full context of the contractual agreement and disputed terms. The Authority emphasized that summary proceedings under the IBC cannot delve into contested factual issues. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on IBC not being a substitute for recovery forums, the Authority rejected the petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting specific criteria, such as the existence of an operational debt exceeding ?1 lakh and the absence of a dispute or pending legal action, for a CIRP application to be valid. Consequently, the petition to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was dismissed, emphasizing that the IBC is not a tool for recovering disputed amounts but for resolving insolvency matters. In conclusion, the judgment underscored the need for clarity on debt obligations and the absence of disputes before invoking the CIRP provisions. It emphasized the significance of adhering to legal standards and established principles in insolvency proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition due to its misconceived nature.
|
