Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 721 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCHMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On 05.02.2019, the Operational Creditor sent the demand notice upon the Corporate Debtor under Section 8 of IBC. It could not be received by the Corporate Debtor due to a change of address. Again on 11.02.2019, the Operational Creditor sent one more demand notice under Section 8 of IBC. It was received by the Corporate Debtor but was not replied to by them. The fact is to be considered that though the Corporate Debtor did not reply to the demand notice under Section 8 of IBC sent by the Operational Creditor but had admittedly replied earlier notices pointing out the dispute about services rendered by the Operational Creditor, whether it can be held that there is no pre-existing dispute pending in between them. In view of all the evidence and record, it cannot be said that the Corporate Debtor did not bring to the knowledge of the Operational Creditor about the pendency of the dispute prior to filing of this application and even prior to receipt of demand notice under Section 8 of IBC by them - It is seen from the evidence on record that number of times notices were sent upon the Corporate Debtor demanding the outstanding payment by the Operational Creditor but the Corporate Debtor went on denying the same on the ground of deficiency of service. In view of the above admitted fact, it is held that there is a pre-existing dispute pending in between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor relating to services rendered by the Operational Creditor and payment of operational debt as claimed herein. Thus, there is a pre-existing dispute in between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor about the services rendered and payment of debt. Such dispute cannot be said to be spurious, feeble or vexatious. The disputed facts require detail investigation which exercise cannot be undertaken by us in our limited jurisdiction of enquiry of application under Section 9of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Application dismissed being not maintainable.
|