9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1008 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - Pre-existing dispute or not - jural relationship between the parties - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT has observed that all that the Adjudicating Authority has to see at the stage of Admission is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the Dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact or a moonshine defence unsupported by tangible materials/evidence. Since, the pre-existing dispute has been established, other issue is not touched upon. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Is there any Pre-existing dispute? 2. Is there any jural relationship between the parties? Analysis & Findings: The case involved a Company Petition filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by an Operational Creditor against a Corporate Debtor for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Operational Creditor claimed a total amount of Rs. 37,06,940 as default by the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor supplied Aluminum XLPE Cables to the Corporate Debtor, who allegedly failed to clear the invoice raised. The Corporate Debtor argued that there was no contractual relation between them and the Operational Creditor, as the cables were ordered through another party, Crystal Cable Industries Limited (CCIL). The Corporate Debtor raised concerns about the quality of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor and had ongoing disputes with CCIL regarding the same. The Operational Creditor contended that the Corporate Debtor had a running account with them and failed to clear the specific invoice. They issued a statutory notice under section 8 of the Code, to which the Corporate Debtor replied, denying the alleged debt. The Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor was aware of the transactions and had not objected to the invoices until later. The Corporate Debtor argued that the Operational Creditor had no right to claim payment as there was no direct contract between them. The Tribunal analyzed the dispute in light of previous judgments and legal provisions. Referring to cases like Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of pre-existing disputes in insolvency proceedings. It was noted that the Corporate Debtor had raised concerns about the quality of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor and had ongoing disputes with CCIL regarding the same. As a pre-existing dispute was established, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, allowing the Corporate Debtor to explore other legal remedies available to them. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition due to the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Corporate Debtor was granted the liberty to pursue other legal options available to them. The order was pronounced on 19th September 2022 by the Tribunal.
|
