Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + SC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1337 - SC - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - NCLT held that there is a valid dispute - claim under Invoice Nos. 1-53 was specifically rejected by the Arbitral Council on the ground that it had become time barred - High Court of Punjab and Haryana while setting aside the remand order passed by the Additional District Judge did not hold that Invoice Nos. 1-57 are time barred - Held that:- 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. Argument advanced by he respondent before this Court that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana while setting aside the remand order passed by the Additional District Judge did not hold that Invoice Nos. 1-57 are time barred and the respondent had a valid claim under those invoices cannot be countenanced. As of today, there is no award of the Arbitral Council with respect to invoices at Sl. Nos. 1-57. There is no order of any other court as well qua these invoices. In fact, Arbitral Council specifically rejected the claim of the respondent as time barred. It is pertinent to mention that respondent had moved an application before the Arbitral Council for determination of amount to be paid by the appellant. However, this application was specifically dismissed by the Arbitral Council as not maintainable. In a recent judgment of this Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] this Court has categorically laid down that IBC is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. It is also laid down that whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked. We allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated September 04, 2018 passed by the NCLAT.
|