2019 (11) TMI 540 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - application rejected on the ground of pre-existing dispute between the parties - Corporate Debtor in their suit filed, reflected a loan of 1,98,03,609.84, which suit has been filed after four months after the Demand Notice was issued u/s 8(1) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (I B) Code - HELD THAT - Apart from the fact that the suit has been filed by Respondent, subsequently, we find that in the said suit the Corporate Debtor has claimed that it is liable to recover a sum of ₹ 3,15,99,172.84 with penal and future interest @ 18% p.a. The aforesaid fact shows that there is a pre-existing dispute which is also corroborated and which was filed by Corporate Debtor - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Existence of pre-existing dispute between the parties.
3. Interpretation of communication between the parties regarding settlement.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) rejecting the application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant argued that the rejection was based on a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Appellant highlighted that the Corporate Debtor's suit reflected a loan amount, which was filed after the Demand Notice under section 8(1) of the I&B Code.

2. The Respondent presented evidence of various emails, including one dated 24th July, 2017, indicating ongoing discussions and meetings between the parties to resolve disputes. The communication mentioned a settlement to be finalized on 8th August, demonstrating a clear intention to resolve the issues. Additionally, the Corporate Debtor had filed a suit claiming a different amount than what was initially acknowledged, further indicating the existence of a pre-existing dispute.

3. The Appellant referred to a specific suit filed by the Corporate Debtor, suggesting an acceptance of liability for a certain amount. However, it was noted that the suit also claimed a higher sum with additional interest. This discrepancy in the claimed amounts further solidified the presence of a pre-existing dispute. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence presented supported the existence of a dispute between the parties, as demonstrated by the communications and legal actions taken. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, with no costs awarded.

In summary, the judgment delved into the rejection of the application under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties based on communications and legal actions taken. The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the evidence presented, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.