Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 403 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHICIRP proceedings - seeking payment of unpaid operational debt - Pre-existing dispute - grievance of the Appellant is that the First Respondent had clearly failed to make refunds even after accepting each liability, which had resulted in filing of the Application under Section 9 of the I & B Code for initiating CIRP - scope and ambit of dispute - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the First Respondent/Operational Debtor has come out with the plea that 1476.36 MT of coal was supplied to the Appellant/Operational Creditor [based on the Invoices and Ledger of the Appellant] though the ‘Agreement’ was towards the supply of 10000 MT of coal. Hence, the balance quantity is equal to 8523. 64 MT as claimed by the First Respondent. Therefore, the First Respondent/Operational Debtor rebuts the stand of the Appellant in the instant Appeal and in rejoinder that balance 7600 MT of Coal was sold by the First Respond without the approval of the First Respondent and in this regard, there is enough force, in the stand taken on behalf of the First Respondent. Dispute - HELD THAT:- The dispute as defined in Section 5 (6) of the I & BC is not to be restricted to the pending lis or proceedings within the limited purview of ‘Suit’ or ‘Arbitration’ proceedings and the term ‘includes’ should be read as ‘means and includes’ including the proceedings initiated or pending before Consumer Court, Tribunal, Labour Court or Mediation, Conciliation etc. Ambit of dispute - HELD THAT:- The ‘Adjudicating Authority’ under the I & B Code is required to examine prior to the admission or rejection of an Application as per Section 9 of the Code as to whether the Dispute projected by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ qualifies as a ‘Dispute’ as per Section 5(6) of the Code and whether Notice of Dispute given by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ satisfies the conditions enumerated in Section 8 (2) of the Code. Pre-existing dispute - HELD THAT:- It is the duty of the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ to find out whether there is a plausible plea which necessitates more investigation and the ‘dispute’ is not weak one or an assertion of facts unsupported by materials/evidence. If the ‘Dispute’ truly exists in fact and not an imaginary or an illusory or spurious one, then, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is bound to turn down the Application. Violation of agreement/contract - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, between Appellant/First Respondent, there are ‘Pre-Existing’ ‘Disputes’ and they are quite tangible/substantial one and as such, the plausible contentions projected/raised by the parties to the present Appeal require further investigation and in short, the dispute is not to be determined by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/Appellate Tribunal in a Summary Jurisdiction under I & B Code. The ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is not a Court of Law and the ‘CIRP’ is not an adversial litigation. The ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is not to decide the Application under I & BC like a ‘Money Claim’ under the I & B Code. Viewed in that perspective, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is not supposed to go into the aspect of dispute in a thread bare fashion or on merits. Appeal dismissed.
|