Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1360 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existing of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The dispute must be pending in suit or arbitral proceedings which is instituted before the receipt of demand notice under section 8 of the code. In view of the decision of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. versus Mobilox Innovation P. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 984 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI], the dispute need not be in a suit or other proceedings and it could be even by way of reply to Demand notice but the Adjudicating Authority has to see whether the dispute raised by the corporate Debtor in the reply notice is a bona fide on substantial grounds or it is only raised to give a colour of dispute or it is illusory dispute. Bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or not? - HELD THAT:- The two disputes goes to the very aspect of limitation regarding the enforceability of the claim of the petitioner. It is a mixed question of fact and law and it is triable issue. The dispute raised by respondent company is bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. The intention of the petitioner is obvious that he wants to compel respondent company's management to pay money claimed by him which according to him is due to him. The very fact that the previous management of the respondent company on the date of handing over of the company to the Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd. handed over copy of the ledger for the period 01.04.2015 to 18.01.2016 speaks volumes of the understanding between the petitioner and the previous management of the respondent company. Object of the code is to ensure reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, individuals etc. and a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets, persons, to promote entrepreneurship etc. If this petition is admitted it would negate the object for which Insolvency code was brought into force. The petitioner has got several other remedies to recover the amount due to him, if any, in other forums. But the remedy chosen by this petitioner in this forum is not at all in accordance with the object of the code. The intention of the petitioner is somehow to collect the amount allegedly due to him. In the case on hand respondent company raised bona fide dispute on substantial grounds on the claim made by the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
|