Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (1) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1944 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyWinding up petition - Transfer of Proceedings Rules - Operational Creditor has initially filed a Petition U/s. 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for Winding-Up of the Respondent Debtor before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 07.11.2016 but subsequently after enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 this Petition is transferred to this Bench in light of ‘Transfer of Proceedings Rules’ - HELD THAT:- On careful perusal of the documents it is noticed that the Corporate Debtor has admittedly supplied 4 modules of Better Technology instead of 7 modules of agreed specifications. It has also been informed to the court that some payment has been made out of the claimed amount. The Corporate Debtor has also raised a dispute regarding the amount claimed. In the present case, it seems that the Petitioner is not sure about its claims and have mentioned different and inconsistent calculations of the alleged excess amount. The correct position of the outstanding debt has not been revealed to this Bench till date. It is clear that a “dispute” as to the existence of the amount of debt was already in existence, prior to the issue of Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Code and the same has been raised by the Corporate debtor time and again - The Corporate Debtor could not have unilaterally altered the number of modules to be supplied under the Purchase Orders. Hence, the question of quality of goods & services provided requires more intrusion and whether there has been a breach of representation or warranty, has to be adjudicated by an appropriate forum. In respect of the definition of “dispute”. the law is now very much settled as held by several Hon'ble Courts, most importantly the decision of Mobilox Vs. Kirusa [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] in which an observation has been made that the Adjudicating Authority is to examine at the stage of admission that whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and on assertion of fact a dispute is supported by evidence. Finally, a conclusion is hereby drawn that this is not a case where the impugned Debt and the alleged default was free from existence of plausible dispute or merely a feeble argument; but duly supported by corroborative evidences, therefore, cannot be proceeded under the Insolvency Code so as to commence CIRP by declaring the Debtor Insolvent or Bankrupt. However, it is worth to put on record that the scope and Jurisdiction of this Tribunal is limited and also confined to the provisions of Insolvency Code only while dealing with Petition filed under Section 9, therefore, the impugned Debt in question does not fall within those ambits. Petition dismissed.
|