9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 31 - AT - 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 - Annexure - 2 at Page no. 107 of the Appeal Paper Book statement does not show dues payment of ₹ 25,00,000/- by the Appellant (Operational Creditor) - Further, Annexure R-1 of the Written Submissions filed by the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) which is the e-mail ledger account of the Appellant (Operational Creditor) relevant at page no. 164 of the Appeal Paper Book dated 02-09-2016 shows receipt of ₹ 25,00,000/- first time during the course of argument before this Appellate Tribunal. This document has been marked as X . As letter sent by the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) to the Appellant (Operational Creditor), this document X was not placed before the Adjudicating Authority. So Ld. Adjudicating Authority rightly came to the conclusion that prior to filing of the application on 14th November, 2018, there is/are pre-existing dispute raised by the Respondent in respect of container detention charges - also, there was a pre-existing dispute and the Ld. Adjudicating Authority rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of IBC. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Allegations of non-payment by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. 3. Dispute regarding outstanding dues and payment plan proposed by the Corporate Debtor. 4. Allegations of manipulation of ledger account by the Operational Creditor. 5. Existence of pre-existing disputes and agreements between parties. Issue 1: Dismissal of petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Adjudicating Authority: The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the order of the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances leading to the dismissal and found that there was a pre-existing dispute raised by the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) regarding container detention charges before the filing of the application. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to dismiss the Company Petition (IB) No. 2 of 2019. Issue 2: Allegations of non-payment by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor: The Operational Creditor, a sole proprietorship firm, supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor, and despite the goods being received and accepted without dispute, the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments for outstanding dues amounting to ?15,57,708/-. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged its liability to make payments but failed to adhere to the repayment plan proposed, leading to the Operational Creditor initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016. Issue 3: Dispute regarding outstanding dues and payment plan proposed by the Corporate Debtor: The Corporate Debtor admitted its liability in writing and proposed a payment plan in installments. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to fulfill the payment schedule, except for a partial payment made earlier. The Operational Creditor contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider these facts properly and mechanically rejected the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016. Issue 4: Allegations of manipulation of ledger account by the Operational Creditor: The Corporate Debtor alleged that the Operational Creditor manipulated the ledger account to show a payment of ?25,00,000/- with malicious intent. The Corporate Debtor claimed that this amount was an advance loan with conditions attached, which the Operational Creditor failed to disclose, leading to disputes and disagreements between the parties. Issue 5: Existence of pre-existing disputes and agreements between parties: The Tribunal found evidence of pre-existing disputes and agreements between the Operational Creditor, Corporate Debtor, and another entity regarding payments and recoveries. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the application under Section 9 of the IBC was upheld based on the presence of these disputes and agreements, indicating a lack of merit in the appeal. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 due to the existence of pre-existing disputes and agreements between the parties, as well as the failure to establish the default warranting insolvency proceedings.
|
