2019 (5) TMI 1933 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - As contended by the Respondent, the relief sought by the Applicant in the two legal notices dated 12.07.2018 and 03.11.2018 are contrary to each other and there is no clarity of purpose. It is obvious from this divergence that the parties, especially the Applicant, have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands, which requires that the present application be dismissed outright. Further, the agreement dated 01.04.2014 entered into by both the parties is very vague in nature and it does not indicate whether the money paid is towards the full cost value of the commercial space allotted or only for investment. The title says it is an investment agreement. Details such as date of completion of the project, interest component for the investment made by the Applicant, documentation formalities like registration of the property after completion of the project etc are totally missing. In the absence of such details it is very difficult to come to the conclusion whether there is debt and the date on which the debt becomes due. The application fails and this Tribunal dismisses the application.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 due to alleged default by the Respondent in settling the financial investment amount.
2. Contention by the Respondent that no default has been committed and the Applicant is not entitled to any amount as the project is incomplete.
3. Dispute regarding the amount claimed by the Applicant and the Respondent's objections to the basis of the claim.
4. Allegations of contradictory stands taken by the Applicant in the legal notices sent to the Respondent.
5. Invocation of arbitration clause by the Respondent and subsequent legal actions taken in that regard.
6. Dispute over the authenticity and reliance on certain documents by the Applicant.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant sought to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Respondent due to an alleged default in settling the financial investment amount. The Applicant claimed a total debt of ?1,36,44,500, including the principal amount and interest component. The Respondent contended that no default had occurred as the project was incomplete, and the Applicant was not entitled to any amount until project completion.

2. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant's claim lacked clarity and proper calculation basis. The Respondent highlighted discrepancies in the legal notices sent by the Applicant, alleging contradictory stands taken by the Applicant in different communications. Additionally, the Respondent invoked an arbitration clause to settle the issue, but the Applicant did not agree to arbitration, leading to further legal actions.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the documents and arguments presented by both parties. It noted the contradictory nature of the Applicant's claims and the lack of clarity in the agreement between the parties. The agreement was deemed vague, lacking crucial details such as project completion date and interest component. Due to these inconsistencies and lack of clear evidence, the Tribunal found the application to be flawed and dismissed it.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of parties approaching with clean hands and highlighted the need for clear documentation in financial agreements. The absence of essential details made it challenging to determine the existence of debt and its due date, leading to the dismissal of the application. The decision was based on the incongruities in the petition and the lack of clarity in the agreement terms.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for corporate insolvency resolution process due to inconsistencies in the Applicant's claims and the lack of clarity in the financial agreement between the parties. The decision underscored the importance of clear documentation and clean dealings in such financial matters, emphasizing the need for parties to present complete and coherent evidence to support their claims in insolvency proceedings.