TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the pendency of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or execution proceedings prevents the existence of dispute requirement under Section 8(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 from being satisfied. (ii) Whether an arbitral award, after dismissal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can form the basis for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Issue (i): Whether the pendency of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or execution proceedings prevents the existence of dispute requirement under Section 8(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 from being satisfied.
Analysis: The statutory definition of dispute under Section 5(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to the existence of the amount of debt. Section 8(2)(a) requires the corporate debtor to bring to notice the existence of a dispute and the record of pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before receipt of the demand notice. The pendency contemplated is pendency of the underlying arbitration proceedings, not merely a challenge under Section 34 or an appeal under Section 37. An award may attain executable status after rejection of Section 34, but the Code does not treat insolvency as a substitute for execution. The existence of pending appellate proceedings and execution proceedings does not convert the claim into a bar against the statutory insolvency remedy on the ground adopted by the Adjudicating Authority.
Conclusion: The existence of dispute was not correctly held against the appellant merely because a Section 37 appeal and execution proceedings were pending.
Issue (ii): Whether an arbitral award, after dismissal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can form the basis for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 treats an arbitral award as relevant evidence of default, and Form 5 expressly contemplates an order of a court, tribunal or arbitral panel adjudicating on default. The Code is intended for insolvency resolution and not for debt recovery by execution. The Adjudicating Authority's view that the applicant must pursue only one effective remedy and that invocation of insolvency would amount to forum shopping was held to be inconsistent with the statutory framework. The award and default could therefore not be excluded merely because the award was capable of enforcement or because execution had been initiated.
Conclusion: An operational creditor is not barred from invoking Section 9 solely because the debt arises from an arbitral award that has survived Section 34 proceedings and is also the subject of execution.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to first determine whether the appellant is an operational creditor and thereafter to examine the completeness of the Section 9 application.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the pendency of an appeal against rejection of a Section 34 challenge or of execution proceedings does not by itself negate the statutory insolvency remedy; the focus remains on the existence of dispute as defined in the Code and on whether the applicant satisfies the requirements for initiating Section 9 proceedings.
TaxTMI 
