Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 15 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyRejection of section 9 application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - time limitation - Respondent sent reply to the demand notice much beyond the statutory period of 10 days prescribed by the IBC - pre-existing debt and dispute or not - issue of credit notes in the context of outstanding dues. Issue of credit notes in the context of outstanding dues - HELD THAT:- It has been held by the Adjudicating Authority that the credit notes sent via the email are genuine and the issuance of the said letters further confirms the Corporate Debtor’s contention that the instant petition has pre-existing disputes. That apart it is noticed that at pages 309 and 310 of APB, two letters dated 02.05.2019 and 04.06.2019 have been sent by the Corporate Debtor requesting the Operational Creditor to issue credit notes for a balance sum of Rs. 2,11,52,579/- on the ground that material worth of Rs. 2.25 crore had been rejected by them - the finding of the Adjudicating Authority is agreed upon that the balance amount claimed as operational debt has been unequivocally disputed by the Corporate Debtor and no liability admitted on this count. The present is therefore not a case where there is an undisputed debt for which Corporate Debtor can be brought under the rigours of CIRP. Three communications purportedly issued by the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has duly considered this aspect and relied on the decision taken by this Tribunal in the matter of Shelendra Kumar Sharma v. DSC Limited [2019 (12) TMI 1643 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] wherein it has been held that the question as to whether documents are forged or not cannot be decided by the Adjudicating Authority. The authenticity of the postal stamps on the postage receipts are not the subject matter which can be decided by the Adjudicating Authority or this Tribunal in view of summary jurisdiction having been conferred on them by the IBC. Enquiry into such allegations and counter-allegations would entail detailed investigation and the legislative intent of the IBC does not clothe the Adjudicating Authority with such powers of investigation. Thus the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error by restraining itself from entering into any sort of roving enquiry on this issue. Whether these three letters had raised a semblance of dispute and if so whether the dispute is patently feeble? - HELD THAT:- Looking conjointly at the three communications issued by the Corporate Debtor regarding supply of defective goods and other related issues on 01.07.2017, 03.10.2017 and 25.04.2019 as also the credit notes issued on 31.01.2018, 02.05.2019 and 04.06.2019 questioning the existence of any operational debt, we have no hesitation in concurring in the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in that there was sufficient foundation of genuine disputes between the two parties. The Adjudicating Authority has also not erred by not getting into the allegations and counter-allegations regarding forgery and fabrication of documents/postage receipts as such conduct of such enquiries/ investigations is beyond the remit of summary proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Section 9 application on the ground of pre-existing dispute - Appeal dismissed.
|