2019 (5) TMI 879 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Admission of Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - Although the Appellant claims that the Adjudicating Authority did not give Appellant a hearing, the Impugned Order shows that the Adjudicating Authority had proof of service on the Corporate Debtor - Although the Appellant claims existence of a dispute and the Appeal claims that a letter like Annexure A5 dated 23rd December, 2017 was sent to the Operational Creditor, there is no proof of service of such letter filed on record. The plea is thus unsupported by evidence. Remitting back the matter would not serve any purpose and the learned Adjudicating Authority having found the Application complete and having admitted the Application under Section 9, the Impugned Order calls for no interference on our part. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Admission of Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)
Existence of pre-existing dispute between the parties
Proof of service of letters and documents
Denial of receipt of letters by the Operational Creditor

Admission of Application under Section 9 of IBC:
The appeal was filed by a shareholder against the order of admission of an application under Section 9 of the IBC by an operational creditor. The operational creditor claimed non-payment of a debt by the corporate debtor despite reminders and sent a notice under Section 8 of IBC. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as the application was found to be complete.

Existence of Pre-existing Dispute:
The appellant claimed a pre-existing dispute based on alleged letters and documents indicating issues with the quality of supplied material. However, the Operational Creditor denied receiving such letters and claimed they were fabricated. The appellant failed to provide proof of service of these letters, and the Adjudicating Authority found no evidence supporting the existence of a pre-existing dispute, leading to the rejection of this claim.

Proof of Service of Letters and Documents:
The appellant argued that certain letters were sent to the Operational Creditor, indicating a dispute over the quality of supplied material. However, the Operational Creditor denied receiving these letters and labeled them as fabricated. The lack of proof of service of these letters on record weakened the appellant's claim of a pre-existing dispute, contributing to the rejection of the appeal.

Denial of Receipt of Letters by the Operational Creditor:
The Operational Creditor explicitly denied receiving letters from the Corporate Debtor regarding defective material, stating that no evidence was presented to prove the existence of such correspondence. The Operational Creditor claimed that the alleged letters were fabricated, further undermining the appellant's argument of a pre-existing dispute. This denial played a crucial role in the rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal as it found no substance in the appellant's claims regarding the existence of a pre-existing dispute and the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the application under Section 9 of the IBC. The lack of evidence supporting the appellant's contentions and the denial of receipt of letters by the Operational Creditor led to the dismissal of the appeal.