Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 662 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- In Section 9 Application of the I & B Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority is to examine whether a Notice of Dispute was received by the Operational Creditor or whether there is a record of Dispute in Information Utility. An Existence of an undisputed Debt, is a sine quanon for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - An Adjudicating Authority has to adhere the mandate of Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, and in particular the mandate of Section 9 (5) of the Code and to admit or to reject the Application, as opined by this Tribunal, after all, the Adjudicating Authority is not required to be satisfied as to whether the Defense is likely to succeed or not. The merits of dispute are not the concern at this stage, but only an Adjudicating Authority is to satisfy at this stage, about the Existence of Dispute, which is good enough to invalidate the Section 9 Application - It is to be remembered that the Dispute and/or the Suit or Arbitration Proceedings, must be pre-existing, it must exist before receipt of Demand Notice or Invoice. As long as the Dispute is not a spurious or an illusory or hypothetical one, the Adjudicating Authority is to admit the Section 9 Application filed by the Petitioner/Applicant/Operational Creditor. As far as the present case is concerned that it is latently and patently quite clear that the two Account Statements of the 2nd Respondent/Corporate Debtor and M/s. Vaishnavi Impex were properly kept separately and in the light of foregoing detailed discussions and also this Tribunal considering the fact that the prior to and after issuance of Demand Notice dated 16.03.2020 by the 1st Respondent/Operational Creditor to the 2nd Respondent/Corporate Debtor, the 2nd Respondent/Corporate Debtor had not raised any Dispute in regard to the Goods supplied by the Operational Creditor and in fact, the 2nd Respondent/Corporate Debtor had admitted the Debt through emails, the 2nd Respondent/Corporate Debtor having utilised the Goods supplied by the 1st Respondent/Operational Creditor cannot avoid or evade its responsibility in not making the payment of Debt of Rs.3,60,11,075/-, because it had committed Default and therefore, without any hesitation, this Tribunal holds that the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench), had rightly admitted the CP(IB) No./60/9/AMR/2020, which does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. Appeal dismissed.
|