2019 (11) TMI 1534 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority does not have the powers of the Civil Court to arrive at the exact amount due and payable under various Invoices. Further, what is the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and the documents substantiating the same, ought to be decided only by trial by the Civil Court. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority cannot go into these details in a summary suit. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Existence of undisputed debt; Determination of operational debt exceeding ?1 lakh; Documentary evidence of debt due and payable; Existence of dispute between parties.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a private limited company. The applicant, an operational creditor engaged in manufacturing printing and packaging material, claimed that the corporate debtor owed a substantial amount along with interest, supported by notices under Section 8 of the Code. On the other hand, the corporate debtor contended that no amount was due, citing disputes regarding pricing since 2015. The parties presented their arguments, documents, and calculations before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Adjudicating Authority referred to the Supreme Court's decision emphasizing the prerequisites for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Court highlighted the need for an undisputed debt exceeding ?1 lakh, documentary evidence of the debt being due and payable, and the existence of a dispute between the parties. It underscored that if any of these conditions were lacking, the application would be rejected. The Authority was mandated to admit or reject the application based on the factors outlined in the Act.

The Authority noted that it lacked the powers of a Civil Court to determine the exact amount due under various invoices or interpret the contract terms between the parties. It emphasized that such matters should be resolved through trial in a Civil Court, and it could not delve into these specifics in a summary suit. Consequently, the application was dismissed without costs. However, the dismissal did not preclude the applicant from seeking other available remedies under different laws to recover any dues.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the crucial aspects of initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, emphasizing the need for an undisputed debt, documentary evidence, and the presence of a genuine dispute. It clarified the limitations of the Adjudicating Authority in determining specific contractual terms and amounts, highlighting the role of a Civil Court in such matters. The decision provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing insolvency proceedings and the Authority's jurisdiction in adjudicating disputes related to operational debts.