2018 (8) TMI 2102 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of demand notice - HELD THAT - There is nothing on record to suggest that the Corporate Debtor raised any dispute about the supply or quality of goods prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 8(1) of I B Code. Such being the case, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that there was no pre-existing dispute and admitted the application. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Existence of dispute regarding criminal case against Managing Director - Pre-existing dispute about supply or quality of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant argued the existence of a dispute, highlighting a criminal case against the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant contended that certain material purchased by the Managing Director, unrelated to the business of the Corporate Debtor, led to bounced cheques and the subsequent criminal case. However, the Tribunal declined to delve into the criminal liability issue, noting its pending consideration before a competent court.

Regarding the dispute over the supply or quality of goods, the Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to indicate that the Corporate Debtor had raised any such dispute before the demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code was issued. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority correctly concluded that there was no pre-existing dispute, leading to the admission of the application. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, without imposing any costs on either party. The decision underscores the importance of establishing pre-existing disputes in insolvency proceedings and the limitations of the Tribunal in adjudicating criminal matters pending before other competent authorities.