Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 914 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of e-mail /correspondences between the Appellant/Corporate Debtor and Respondent/Operational Creditor, it is the case of the Appellant/Corporate Debtor that the Respondent has not completed the project in time thereby the Project was got delayed thereby they suffered losses. On the other side, the stand of Respondent/Operational Creditor that they have completed the Project and handed over to the Appellant/Corporate Debtor, however, Appellant/Corporate Debtor failed to pay bills even after complete of the project. It is unequivocal that there exists dispute between the parties prior to the issuance of Demand Notice dated 11.04.2019 - the learned Adjudicating Authority instead of taking a technical objection that the Appellant/Corporate Debtor has not replied to the Demand Notice issued by the Respondent/Operational Creditor within statutory period of 10 days as contemplated under Section 8(2) of IBC, should have analysed the documents placed before it, before taking such objection. Thus, the correspondences i.e., e-mail/letters show that there is existence of disputes prior to issuance of Demand Notice - Exchange of e-mails/correspondences, as referred above, clearly establishes that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding completion of the work and the Appellant/Corporate Debtor continuously made complaints regarding non-completion of work and deficiency in services, thereby loss caused to the Appellant/Corporate Debtor. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is pre-existing of dispute regarding completion of the work and the learned Adjudicating Authority ought not to have admitted the Application under Section 9 of IBC filed by the Respondent/ Operational Creditor. Even in the Reply filed by the Appellant/Corporate Debtor before the learned Adjudicating Authority pursuant to Section 9 Application, it is quite clear that there was sufficient material produced before the learned Adjudicating Authority and the learned Adjudicating Authority ought to have considered the materials placed before it - thus, the learned Adjudicating Authority should have considered the substantial material placed before it in its correct perspective, before passing the Impugned Order dated 04.06.2020 thus committed error. It is re-iterated that the Code is a beneficial legislation intended to put the Corporate Debtor on its feet and it is not a mere money recovery legislation for the Creditors. Initiation of CIRP set aside - matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide Fee and Cost of CIRP which shall be payable to Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional by the Respondent/Operational Creditor - appeal allowed.
|