Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 307 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of Section 9 application - pre-existing dispute - Respondent Company was a Commercially Solvent Company - HELD THAT:- The issue whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the Parties is to be adjudicated on the touch stone of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] and in the matter of TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED VERSUS EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AND CABLES LIMITED [2018 (10) TMI 1337 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held Existence of an undisputed debt is sine qua non of initiating CIRP. It also follows that the adjudicating authority shall satisfy itself that there is a debt payable and there is operational debt and the corporate debtor has not repaid the same. In the instant case, admittedly 97 % of the amount due for the invoices raised by the Appellant was paid and 3 % of the Invoices amount was withheld by the Respondent Company. It is the case of the Appellant that despite service of Notice on the Respondent Company at the address ‘No. 11th, K.M. Hosur Road, Bommanahalli, No. 38/5/B Hyland, Industrial Estate, Bengaluru – 68’, there was no reply and hence, a pre-existing dispute cannot be raised subsequent to the filing of the Section 9 Petition - It is not denied by the Appellant that the postal code of the Respondent’s Registered Office Company is 560035. Be that as it may, in their Reply to this Section 9 Petition, the Respondent Company has raised a pre-existing dispute for having withheld the 3 % amount towards liquidated damages. It is the consistent stand of the Respondent Company that 97% of the Amount was paid and the balance 3 % was kept on hold only on account of evaluating customer satisfaction and it was established that there was a delay of six weeks on behalf of the Appellant Company in executing the job assigned to them on account of which liquidated damages / Penalty of Rs. 40,56,539/- which is as per the terms of the Contract was levied. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view that there is a pre-existing dispute which is not a spurious defence which is a mere bluster. In the judgment of Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., it is clearly held that the Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute, but as long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the Adjudicating Authority has to reject the Application. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the aforenoted ratio is applicable to the facts of this case as we are satisfied that a ‘dispute’ truly existed for the Respondent Company to have withheld 3% of the total invoice amount. Whether Section 9 Application can be entertained against a Solvent Company, the scope and objective of the Code has to be kept in mind before admission of such an Application? - HELD THAT:- The spirit of the Code is maximization of the assets and Resolution and not Recovery. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.’ [2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT] has held that ‘the primary focus of the legislation is to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and from a corporate death by liquidation. The Code is thus a beneficial legislation which puts the corporate debtor back on its feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors.’ Appeal dismissed.
|