9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 367 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - On failure to pay the outstanding dues by the Respondent the applicant sent a demand notice dated 25.09.2018 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 to the respondent asking them to make the entire payment of 1, 72, 982/- together with interest within 10 days from receipt of the notice failing which the applicant shall initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against the Respondent. The demand notice in the present case was issued under Section 8(1) of the Code on 25.09.2018 Respondents have placed their earlier correspondences dated 06.06.2017 and beyond raising issues with respect to the quality of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor. It is thus seen that the dispute was brought to the notice of the applicant prior to the issuance of the demand notice dated 25.09.2018 issued under Section 8(1) of the Code. This application fails and the same is hereby rejected and dismissed.
Issues:
Application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Analysis: The Applicant, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of CIRP against the Respondent, M/s. Swastik Pipe Ltd. The Applicant claimed an outstanding debt of &8377; 1,72,982 along with interest at 15% from the due date, totaling &8377; 2,22,714, for supply of lubricant oils as per invoices issued in May 2017. Despite various reminders and a demand notice, the Respondent did not respond, leading to the application for CIRP initiation. The Respondent contested the application, arguing that the Notice of Demand under Section 8 of the Code was not validly served before initiating CIRP, as it was mandatory. The Respondent claimed to have raised a dispute regarding the quality/quantity of products supplied by the Applicant, making the application not maintainable as per established law. The Respondent cited a previous case to support their argument. In response, the Applicant denied the existence of any pre-existing dispute before the demand notice was issued, countering the Respondent's claims of dispute. The Applicant provided evidence of serving the notice at the registered address of the Corporate Debtor, as required under the Code. The Applicant also highlighted a case precedent where the service of demand notice at the Corporate Office was deemed valid for CIRP initiation. The Tribunal noted the contentions of both parties and referred to relevant legal provisions and case laws. It concluded that a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied existed, falling within the definition of 'Dispute' under the Code. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had raised issues with the quality of goods supplied before the demand notice was issued, rendering the application for CIRP initiation unsuccessful. The application was rejected and dismissed, with a clarification that the decision did not prejudice the rights of the Applicant to seek remedy elsewhere. Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the application due to the Respondent's registered office being in New Delhi. The judgment emphasized that the dismissal of the application did not reflect an opinion on the underlying dispute's merits, ensuring the parties' rights were preserved for further legal recourse.
|
