2021 (11) TMI 190 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - pre-existing dispute between the parties - HELD THAT - It is noted that Operational Creditor had received a sum of ₹ 66,70,774/- as against the total bill for ₹ 1,03,37/256/- and ₹ 7,92,520/- as against the total bill for ₹ 18,79,942/-. The Corporate Debtor was legally liable to pay an amount of ₹ 36,73,997/- and ₹ 10,87,422/- respectively towards outstanding bills. Then after Operational creditor filed Civil Suits and withdrawn the same and filed before this Tribunal and also filed for winding up the Corporate Debtor before Hon'ble High Court and both the parties initiated conciliation process but failed. It is noted by the Bench that there are disputes regarding the claim of the Operational Creditor and those disputes were pending much prior to the issuance of the demand notice - It is settled law that Application under Section 9 of the Code by the Operational Creditor is not maintainable in the event there is preexisting dispute between the parties in relation to a debt and in the event of Operational Creditor has received a notice of dispute before the issuing the demand notice. In view of the pre-existing dispute between the parties in relation to the amounts claimed by the Operational Creditor and the chain of events associated with it, the Bench is of the view that this Petition under Section 9 of the Code is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Petition filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
- Dispute over outstanding amounts between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor.
- Allegations of non-payment, deductions, and statutory notices.
- Counter-arguments regarding disputed claims, conciliation process, and limitation period.
- Legal interpretation of the pre-existing dispute and maintainability of the petition under Section 9 of the Code.

Analysis:
1. The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor for outstanding amounts related to construction works on national highways. The Operational Creditor alleged non-payment of significant sums despite completing the works as per agreements signed between the parties.

2. Both parties had differing claims regarding the amounts owed, with the Operational Creditor asserting outstanding bills totaling to a substantial sum. The Corporate Debtor, on the other hand, disputed these claims, alleging that payments were made based on approved bills and that the remaining balance was much lower than what was being demanded.

3. The Corporate Debtor raised counter-arguments, including disputes over the completion and execution of work, the conciliation process, and the alleged time-barred nature of the claims made by the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor also contended that the Operational Creditor failed to resolve disputes before initiating legal proceedings.

4. The Tribunal noted the existence of disputes between the parties regarding the claims made by the Operational Creditor, which predated the demand notices issued. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of resolving pre-existing disputes before initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Code.

5. Referring to established legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that due to the pre-existing disputes and the chain of events leading to the petition, the Operational Creditor's application under Section 9 was not maintainable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Corporate Debtor.

6. The judgment highlighted the necessity for clarity on outstanding amounts, resolution of disputes, and adherence to legal requirements before seeking insolvency proceedings. The decision underscored the importance of addressing pre-existing disputes to maintain the integrity of the insolvency resolution process under the Code.