Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1476 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational creditor - Existence of debt and dispute or not - application rejected on the ground that the dispute has been raised much prior to the Section 8 notice - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code the Adjudicating Authority shall reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor. Section (d) refers to the notice of an existing dispute that has been received, as it has to be read with Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. The moment there is existence of a pre-existing dispute, the operational debtor gets out of the clutches of the rigors of the Code - In the present case admittedly, respondent has relied upon its reply to the demand notice issued under Section 8 (2) of the Code on 18.03.2018 and 20.03.2018 bringing to the notice of the petitioner the existence of dispute in respect of the claimed operational debt. It is no longer Res-lntegra that the definition of dispute is inclusive and not exhaustive. Dispute has been given wide meaning so as to cover all disputes on debt, default etc. and not be limited to only pending suit or a record of a pending arbitration - there is also no dispute that this is not the forum to examine and adjudicate as to what extent the claim of the petitioner is admissible as due and recoverable. Neither the Tribunal in the proceedings under Section 9 will examine the merits of the respective disputes. Moreover, even the adequacy of dispute is not to be seen. It is only to be seen whether the dispute raised by the corporate debtor qualifies as a 'dispute' as defined under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Code. Whether there is an existence of a dispute between the parties that would fall within the inclusive definition contained in Section 5(6) of the Code? - HELD THAT:- In the facts there appears existence of a genuine dispute between the parties. The respondent has also an offsetting claim. These are matters of trial and enquiry. Tribunal in the present proceeding cannot go into roving enquiry into the disputed claims made by the parties. This is not the forum to examine and adjudicate as to which portion of the claims or counter claims are admissible. At this stage it is immaterial to consider who will succeed. Tribunal will not examine the merits of the dispute other than to see if there is in fact exists a real dispute having some substance - it is seen that not only there is pre-existing dispute but also there is a confusion on the actual amount of default. The various documents/ correspondences placed on record show that dispute was not raised for the first time to evade liability but certainly pre-existed prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Code. There are allegations of non-conciliation of accounts despite request. It is also pertinent to note that various disputes raised by the respondent in its reply dated 13.08.2019 has not been specifically denied by the applicant. Once there is material to believe that dispute exists, it is right to have the matter tried out before the axe, in the form of corporate insolvency resolution process falls - Existence of an undisputed operational debt is sine qua non for initiating CIRP under Section 9 of the Code. The Code is not intended to be a substitute to a recovery forum. The moment there is existence of a dispute, the corporate debtor gets out of the clutches of the Code. In the factual background of this case 'existence of real dispute' cannot be totally overruled. The respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars to qualify as a dispute as defined under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Code - application rejected.
|