Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 628 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHIMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- As per Part IV from I, the debt fell due when the invoices were raised in the year 2011-12. The debt was admitted by the corporate debtor in terms of agreement dated 15.09.2014. The winding up proceedings, were initiated in the year 2016. The IBC demand notice was sent in July 2017 and the present application is filed on 22.01.2019. Hence the application is not time barred and filed within the period of limitation. The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application - The present application is filed on the Performa prescribed under Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 r/w Section 9 of the code and is complete. Existence of dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The SPA executed on 25.05.2016, was never revoked hence Ms. Radhika Singh is duly authorized to filed the present application. Moreover, there is a pre-existing dispute among the parties and the same is validated as per emails correspondences exchanged during the year 2011-2012 wherein the corporate debtor had raised dispute with regards the inferior quality of goods. The disputes have also been raised by the corporate debtor in its reply to the winding up notice and demand notice under Section 8 of IBC of the applicant. This leaves no doubt that the so called dispute raised by the corporate debtor is not merely a moonshine dispute. A conclusion can be drawn that there is ‘Preexistence dispute’ which was raised by the corporate debtor time and again in terms of the agreement executed between the parties much prior to the notice served under section 8 of I & B Code by way of its reply to statutory notice for winding up as well reply to winding up petition and also in reply to Section 8 notice under IBC. It is a fit case to reject the application under section 9 of the I & B Code. Application dismissed.
|