2020 (4) TMI 352 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - We do not find that the Corporate Debtor is able to show dispute with regard to quality of services rendered and thus we do not find any reason to interfere in the Impugned Order. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by Operational Creditor against Corporate Debtor.
2. Existence of dispute between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor.
3. Interpretation of emails and agreements to determine the existence of dispute.
4. Adjudication of the case by the National Company Law Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Appellant, who claims to be the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, against the admission of an application filed by the Operational Creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Operational Creditor alleged that the Corporate Debtor owed a significant amount for consultancy services provided between March 2013 and February 2019. A Demand Notice was sent for the unpaid operational debt, but the Corporate Debtor claimed there was an existing dispute regarding the services provided.

The dispute centered around the quality of services rendered, with the Operational Creditor alleging non-payment of dues, while the Corporate Debtor argued that there was a confusion due to transactions with sister concerns. The Adjudicating Authority examined various emails and agreements to determine the existence of a dispute. The Corporate Debtor had requested reports on services rendered and payments made, indicating a potential disagreement over the success-based fees outlined in the agreements.

The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the Corporate Debtor had not raised any substantial dispute regarding the quality of services rendered. The emails and agreements reviewed did not clearly establish a pre-existing or plausible dispute. The Authority found no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order, dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the Operational Creditor. The judgment highlights the importance of clear contractual terms and communication in resolving disputes between parties in insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal.