9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 383 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The claim made by the Petitioner is not established beyond doubt by producing evidence and it is also on record, even prior to the Statutory Demand Notice dated 15.05.2018, there is a clear dispute with regard to the claim made by the Petitioner. Moreover, the parties also admitted to have settled the claim amount for a sum of ₹ 6,70,167/- by email 29.03.2018, after discussing the issue in question between the parties, in order to start new business relationship. Even though reply given by the Respondent raising various contentions but expressed their willingness to settle the issue, provided the Petitioner to submit their claim with substantial evidence. Therefore, it would be just and proper to leave the matter to the parties first try to settle the claim wherein the Petitioner can its claim with all supporting evidence to the Respondent so as to consider the same as per merits. It is settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount(s). In view of the willingness of both the parties to settle the issue, we are inclined to dispose of the Company Petition with a permission to the Petitioner to submit its claim with all the supporting evidence to the Respondent for its considerations and thereafter, if any grievances remains for the Petitioner, it can approach this Authority - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of NCLT New Delhi Bench. 2. Completion of work by Petitioner/Operational Creditor. 3. Payment default by Respondent/Corporate Debtor. 4. Existence of a dispute regarding the claimed amount. 5. Maintainability of the petition under IBC, 2016. 6. Willingness of parties to settle the matter. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of NCLT New Delhi Bench: The Petitioner initially filed the case before NCLT, New Delhi Bench, which lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Bengaluru Bench and renumbered as C.P. (IB) No. 395/BB/2019. 2. Completion of Work by Petitioner/Operational Creditor: The Petitioner, a sole proprietorship concern engaged in landscaping and infrastructure projects, was contracted by the Respondent for civil works at the American School, Mumbai. The Petitioner claimed to have completed the work and submitted various bills, which the Respondent allegedly acknowledged but partially paid, leaving a balance of ?21,44,588.40. 3. Payment Default by Respondent/Corporate Debtor: The Petitioner asserted that despite completing the work and raising bills, the Respondent failed to pay the outstanding amount. The Petitioner issued a statutory demand notice on 15th May 2018, which the Respondent replied to on 8th June 2018, disputing the claim and offering to settle reasonable amounts. 4. Existence of a Dispute Regarding the Claimed Amount: The Respondent contested the Petitioner's claims, stating that the additional work was neither approved nor completed as per the work order. The Respondent acknowledged only a retention amount of ?6,46,782 and disputed the balance claim of ?21,44,588.40. The Respondent also accused the Petitioner of filing the petition to defame the company. 5. Maintainability of the Petition under IBC, 2016: The Tribunal noted that the claim was disputed and not established beyond doubt with substantial evidence. It emphasized that IBC, 2016 is not a substitute for a recovery forum, referencing the Supreme Court's rulings in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. and Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd. The existence of a genuine dispute and the willingness of both parties to settle indicated that the petition was not maintainable for initiating CIRP. 6. Willingness of Parties to Settle the Matter: Both parties expressed willingness to settle the matter amicably. The Tribunal directed the Petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation with supporting evidence to the Respondent within two weeks. The Respondent was instructed to consider the claim dispassionately and communicate its decision within two weeks thereafter. The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again if aggrieved by the Respondent's decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the petition, permitting the Petitioner to submit its claim with evidence to the Respondent and directing the Respondent to consider the claim on its merits. The Petitioner was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if dissatisfied with the Respondent's decision. No order as to costs was made.
|
