Tribunal Denies Application: Pre-existing Dispute & Account Reconciliation; Rights Preserved

The Tribunal rejected the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, citing the presence of a pre-existing dispute and the necessity for account reconciliation. The decision highlighted that these findings should not impact the applicant's rights in other forums, with the order to be communicated to the involved parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. Existence of debt and default.
3. Pre-existing dispute between the parties.
4. Limitation period for the claim.
5. Adequacy of the dispute raised by the respondent.
6. Requirement of reconciliation and approval of accounts.
7. Allegations of overpayment and separate diesel invoice dispute.
8. Admissibility of the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal established its territorial jurisdiction over the corporate debtor, M/S D-Art Furniture Systems Private Limited, as its registered office is located in New Delhi. This is in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

2. Existence of Debt and Default:
The applicant, M/S Sudhir Sales & Services Limited, claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 56,37,899/- against the corporate debtor. The claim arose from a contract for the supply of DG sets and diesel, with various invoices raised and partial payments made by the respondent.

3. Pre-existing Dispute Between the Parties:
The respondent contended that there was a pre-existing dispute communicated to the applicant through letters dated 09.09.2017 and 09.11.2017. The Tribunal noted that the definition of "dispute" under Section 5(6) of the Code includes any suit or arbitration proceedings relating to the existence of the amount of debt, quality of goods or service, or breach of representation or warranty.

4. Limitation Period for the Claim:
The respondent argued that the claim was barred by limitation as the invoices pertained to the years 2008 to 2010. The Tribunal acknowledged that the claim had remained unpaid since 2011, and repeated follow-ups were made by the applicant.

5. Adequacy of the Dispute Raised by the Respondent:
The Tribunal emphasized that the dispute should not be vague, fabricated, or raised for the first time to evade liability. The respondent had raised disputes regarding overpayment and the inclusion of diesel costs in the total contract value before the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code.

6. Requirement of Reconciliation and Approval of Accounts:
The respondent's letter dated 13.11.2013 indicated the need for reconciliation and approval of accounts. The Tribunal found force in the contention that the reconciliation issue was raised much earlier, in 2013.

7. Allegations of Overpayment and Separate Diesel Invoice Dispute:
The respondent claimed that an excess payment of Rs. 11,21,792/- was made to the applicant and disputed the separate invoices raised for diesel, arguing that the diesel cost was included in the total contract value. The applicant failed to provide specific documents to justify the separate diesel invoices.

8. Admissibility of the Application Under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Tribunal referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court's observation in the case of Mobilox Innovative Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., stating that the adjudicating authority must reject the application if there is a plausible contention requiring further investigation and if the dispute is not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory. Given the pre-existing disputes and the need for reconciliation, the Tribunal concluded that the corporate debtor was not liable under the Code.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to the existence of a pre-existing dispute and the need for reconciliation of accounts. The Tribunal clarified that its observations should not prejudice the applicant's rights before any other forum. The order was to be served to the parties.

---