Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 797 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - dispute regarding quality of goods, raised prior to the receiving of the Demand Notice - defective goods supplied or not - HELD THAT - On reading of Sections 8 9 of the IBC together, it is found that before filing an application under Section 9 of IBC, an Operational Creditor is required to deliver a Demand Notice under Section 8 (1) of the IBC and the Corporate Debtor is required to file a reply to the same within 10 days of receiving the Demand Notice or copy of the invoices mentioned in sub-section (1) and bring to the notice of the operational creditor (a) existence of a dispute, if any, or record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute. The Corporate Debtor is also required to produce the documents to show that the amount if any has been paid. And after the expiry of the period of 10 days, if the Operational Creditor does not receive the payment from the Corporate Debtor or notice of dispute under sub-section 2 of Section 8 of IBC then the Operational Creditor has right to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Corporate Debtor shows that they made the payment or sent notice of dispute in that case the application under Section 9 of IBC is not maintainable. In other words, if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is record of dispute in the information utility then the Adjudicating Authority may reject the application - in the present case, it is found that the Corporate Debtor has raised a dispute regarding the quality of goods prior to the receiving of Demand Notice. Mere plain reading of Section 5(6) of the IBC shows that the dispute includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to the existence of the amount of debt, or the quality of goods or service or the breach of a representation or warranty - Here in the case in hand, the Corporate Debtor has raised a dispute regarding the quality of the goods, which is one of the dispute u/s5(6) of IBC and in support of that they have placed reliance upon two letters which are enclosed at page nos. 19 21 of the reply, in which it is specifically mentioned that Corporate Debtor has raised a question relating to quality of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor on 09.10.2015 and also sent a reminder on 16.10.2015 in which it is alleged that the Operational Creditor is not responding to their quality complaint. The contention of the Corporate Debtor that they raised the dispute regarding the quality of goods is correct and liable to be accepted. As it is already stated that the last date of invoice is 05.10.2015 and soon thereafter, the dispute relating to quality was raised by the Corporate Debtor - the Corporate Debtor had raised a dispute regarding the quality of goods and Operational Creditor had failed to convince us that the same dispute was resolved, therefore, the Operational Creditor has falsely sworn an affidavit under Section 9 (3) (b) that no notice was given by the Corporate Debtor relating to the payment of the unpaid operational debt, therefore, in view of Section 9 (5) (ii) (d), if the notice or dispute has been raised by the Corporate Debtor or there is record of dispute in the information utility, in that case the Adjudicating Authority has no option but to reject the application of the Operational Creditor. The present application is not maintainable and same is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) 2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default 3. Dispute Regarding Quality of Goods 4. Compliance with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Procedures Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP): The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the Operational Creditor to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor claimed an outstanding amount of ?1,82,96,486/- including interest. The Corporate Debtor had accepted the receipt of goods and made part payments. 2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default: The Operational Creditor provided evidence of sales transactions and part payments received from the Corporate Debtor for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Corporate Debtor confirmed the outstanding amount via email dated 26.04.2017. A Demand Notice was sent on 27.02.2019, which was replied to by the Corporate Debtor on 08.03.2019, disputing the claim. 3. Dispute Regarding Quality of Goods: The Corporate Debtor contended that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied, which was communicated to the Operational Creditor before the Demand Notice was issued. The Corporate Debtor cited letters dated 09.10.2015 and 16.10.2015, highlighting complaints about the quality of PVC Resins supplied. The Operational Creditor failed to address these complaints satisfactorily. 4. Compliance with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Procedures: The tribunal examined compliance with Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC. Section 8 requires the Operational Creditor to deliver a Demand Notice and the Corporate Debtor to respond within ten days, indicating any dispute or payment. Section 9 allows the Operational Creditor to file an application if no payment or dispute notice is received. The tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had raised a dispute regarding the quality of goods before receiving the Demand Notice, which was not disclosed by the Operational Creditor in their affidavit under Section 9(3)(b). Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor had raised a valid dispute regarding the quality of goods before the Demand Notice was issued. The Operational Creditor's affidavit stating no dispute existed was found to be false. Therefore, under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the IBC, the application was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.
|