2022 (6) TMI 102 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - It is observed that the Corporate Debtor had raised a dispute for the first time vide its email dated 09.05.2017 with respect to the products delivered to the Operational Creditor. Subsequently on several occasions i.e. 12.05.2017, 22.05.2017, 24.05.2017, 23.06.2017, 01.07.2017, 04.07.2017, 06.07.2017 and 25.07.2017 disputes were raised with respect to the quantity and quality of the fabric delivered to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, it can be seen that there was clever dispute between the parties with respect to the quality and quantity of the material supplied by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. On perusal of contents of the emails dated 9.05.2017, 12.05.2017, 22.05.2017, 24.05.2017, 23.06.2017, 01.07.2017, 04.07.2017, 06.07.2017 and 25.07.2017 the 'dispute' has been raised by the Corporate Debtor 'problem in bulks, shortage in bulks' and the 'dispute' raised by the Corporate Debtor does not appears to be hypothetical or illusory. From the, averments in petition and reply thereto and all other documents placed on record, this Bench is of the view that there is a dispute, which requires further investigation. There was pre-existing dispute between the parties; accordingly the present petition is not maintainable - Petition dismissed.

Issues:
Application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process based on unpaid operational debt. Dispute regarding quality and quantity of material supplied leading to a pre-existing dispute between the parties.

Analysis:
The application was filed by Anurutan Textiles Private Limited under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming to be an operational creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent company, alleged to be the corporate debtor. The petitioner detailed transactions where invoices totaling Rs. 1,25,38361.50 were issued, with an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,07,78,524 for supplying raw material. A demand notice was sent to the corporate debtor for unpaid operational debt. The corporate debtor contended that transactions were regular, payments were made, and debit notes were issued against invoices, raising issues of shortage and variation. They also mentioned filing a police complaint regarding the invoices.

The operational creditor, in response, highlighted the admission of dues by the corporate debtor in the Statement of Account, denying any pre-existing dispute on the invoices. They criticized the arbitrary issuance of debit notes without proper support or explanation. The tribunal reviewed the submissions, emails, and affidavits, noting that the corporate debtor raised disputes regarding product quality and quantity multiple times, indicating a genuine dispute. Citing legal precedent, the tribunal emphasized the need to distinguish genuine disputes from feeble arguments, concluding that a dispute requiring further investigation existed between the parties. Consequently, the tribunal held that a pre-existing dispute was present, rendering the petition not maintainable, and dismissed it without costs.

In summary, the judgment focused on the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor regarding the quality and quantity of materials supplied. The tribunal's decision to dismiss the petition was based on the finding that a genuine dispute requiring further investigation existed, as evidenced by the communications and actions of both parties. The tribunal's analysis underscored the importance of substantiated disputes over mere assertions, leading to the dismissal of the petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

← Previous Next →