9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 164 - AT - IBCDismissal of Section 9 Application on the ground that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties - concerns regarding the quality of work - operational debt was due and payable or not - HELD THAT - From the materials on record it is found that before the demand notice dated 01.07.2022 was issued by the Operational Creditor Drilltech Engineers the Corporate Debtor DLF had already issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 21.06.2022 which is being dealt little later as per chronology of events. From the records it can also be seen that the show cause notice had called upon the Operational Creditor to rectify the defective works and reserved its rights to recover revenue losses suffered by it. The Appellant-Operational Creditor Drilltech Engineers claims that the alleged disputes were raised post facto. The Corporate Debtor had availed GST input credit on invoices for which the work has already been performed by the Operational Creditor but were subsequently disputed by the Corporate Debtor for evading payment. Corporate Debtor had made partial payments without protest and continued receiving services from the Appellant - The Operational Creditor Drilltech Engineers also contends that part payments were made even after raising so-called disputes by the Corporate Debtor. At no point in time the contract was terminated or proceedings for liquidated damages were issued. It also contends that the piles were undercast as per the letter dated 02.05.2022 and 23.05.2022 issued by the Corporate Debtor whereas its own subsequent letters show that there is an issue of earth settlement and loose status while at the site. From the materials on record and in the above facts and circumstances it is found that there is lot of communication exchanged between the two parties indicating pre-existing dispute which cannot be ignored and which cannot be said to be moonshine or spurious and it is much prior in time to the issuance of demand notice by the Operational Creditor Drilltech Engineers. The final SCN dated 21.06.2022 issued by Corporate Debtor prior to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor dated 01.07.2022 succinctly captures the pre-existing dispute. It is concluded that these are pre-existing disputes which cannot be adjudicated by NCLT and this need to be settled at appropriate forum. The law is very clear that as per Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code on existence of pre-existing dispute the application is not maintainable. Conclusion - The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the Section 9 Application. Perusal of the rival contentions indicate that there is a pre-existing dispute which has been going on prior to the issuance of demand notice by the Operational Creditor Drilltech Engineers. There are no infirmity in the orders of the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal dismissed.
The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the maintainability of a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), specifically whether a pre-existing dispute existed between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor at the time of issuance of the statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC. The key issues include:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Existence of a Pre-existing Dispute Prior to Demand Notice The legal framework governing this issue is Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the IBC, which bars admission of an insolvency application if a pre-existing dispute exists between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. The Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations clarified that the adjudicating authority must reject an application if a plausible dispute exists, even without delving into the merits, provided the dispute is not spurious or illusory. The Court examined voluminous correspondence exchanged between the parties prior to the demand notice dated 01.07.2022. The Corporate Debtor had repeatedly raised concerns about the Operational Creditor's performance, including delayed mobilization of rigs, slow progress, site protection issues, failure to clear muck/slush, inadequate security and lighting, and defective piling work. Multiple letters dated between December 2021 and June 2022 documented these grievances and called for rectification, compliance, and acceleration of work. Notably, the Corporate Debtor issued a Show Cause Notice on 21.06.2022 explicitly alleging defective work, losses incurred, and reserving rights to recover damages. The Court found that these communications constituted a genuine and substantive dispute, not a mere afterthought. The existence of the Show Cause Notice prior to the demand notice was particularly significant, as it demonstrated that the Corporate Debtor had formally raised objections and claimed damages before the insolvency proceedings were initiated. The Court applied the Mobilox Innovations test, emphasizing that the dispute must be "plausible" and not "patently feeble." The detailed correspondence and formal notices evidenced a bona fide dispute on quality and performance issues, which was neither spurious nor hypothetical. Consequently, the Court concluded that the dispute was pre-existing and barred the maintainability of the Section 9 application. 2. Impact of Corporate Debtor's Conduct on the Existence of Dispute The Operational Creditor argued that the Corporate Debtor's conduct-such as approval of proforma invoices, partial payments, and assignment of additional piling work after completion of the initial scope-negated any claim of pre-existing dispute. The contention was that no party would assign further work to a contractor whose performance was disputed, and that prior approvals constituted conclusive acceptance under Clause 69.2 of the contract. The Court acknowledged these submissions but found them insufficient to negate the documented disputes. It observed that despite partial payments and approvals, the Corporate Debtor's repeated complaints and formal Show Cause Notice indicated ongoing dissatisfaction and unresolved issues. The Corporate Debtor's partial payments were viewed as efforts to ease cash flow rather than acceptance of the work quality. Furthermore, the assignment of additional work was not determinative of the absence of dispute, given the subsequent communications highlighting defects and delays. The Court noted that the dispute related to quality and rectification obligations, which are distinct from mere payment approvals. The Corporate Debtor's invocation of contractual clauses for recovery of losses and refusal of further payments until defects were rectified underscored the existence of a substantive dispute. 3. Timing and Nature of Dispute Raised Post Demand Notice The Operational Creditor claimed that the dispute was fabricated and raised only after the demand notice, citing the Corporate Debtor's reply dated 12.07.2022 as vague and unsubstantiated. It argued that disputes raised post demand notice do not qualify as pre-existing under judicial precedents. The Court, however, found that the dispute had been raised well before the demand notice, as evidenced by the Show Cause Notice and prior correspondence. The Corporate Debtor's reply to the demand notice was thus a continuation of an existing dispute, not a new or contrived claim. The Court rejected the Operational Creditor's characterization of the dispute as afterthought or reactionary. 4. Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments The Court carefully balanced the parties' submissions and the documentary evidence. It applied the legal standard from Mobilox Innovations, which requires the adjudicating authority to assess whether a dispute is genuine and not spurious, without deciding the merits. The Court found that the Corporate Debtor's detailed complaints, formal notices, and invocation of contractual remedies demonstrated a plausible dispute. The Operational Creditor's reliance on invoice approvals and partial payments was considered but found insufficient to override the documented disputes. The Court emphasized that approval of invoices does not preclude the Corporate Debtor from raising quality-related disputes, especially when such disputes were contemporaneously communicated. The Court also noted that the adjudicating authority's role is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of dispute, not its resolution. Since a pre-existing dispute was established, the Section 9 application was rightly dismissed as not maintainable. Significant Holdings The Court upheld the principle that "once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility." It reiterated the Supreme Court's guidance:
Further, the Court concluded that the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor was "much prior in time to the issuance of demand notice" and was "not moonshine or spurious." The dismissal of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with the Appellant being free to pursue other remedies as per law.
|
