Operational creditor's application upheld due to lack of pre-existing dispute, valid demand notice, dismissal of WhatsApp settlement.

The Tribunal found the operational creditor's application maintainable, as the creditor was engaged in wholesale trading. It held that no pre-existing dispute existed as the debtor failed to raise one timely. The demand notice was deemed valid as it was sent by the proprietor. The claimed settlement through WhatsApp was dismissed for lack of written agreement. Consequently, the application was admitted, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the debtor, imposing a moratorium, and appointing an Interim Resolution Professional.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application filed by the operational creditor.
2. Existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
3. Validity of the demand notice sent by the operational creditor.
4. Settlement of the outstanding debt through WhatsApp communications.
5. Admission of the application and initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application:
The operational creditor, a sole proprietorship, filed an application to initiate CIRP against the corporate debtor for a defaulted amount of INR 21,27,034.75. The corporate debtor contended that the application was not maintainable, arguing that the operational creditor acted as a facilitator between the actual manufacturer/supplier and the corporate debtor. The Tribunal found that the operational creditor was engaged in wholesale trading and not merely a facilitator. Therefore, the application was maintainable.

2. Existence of a Pre-existing Dispute:
The corporate debtor claimed that disputes arose due to the operational creditor dumping goods without demand and that a settlement was reached via WhatsApp messages. However, the operational creditor denied any such settlement or disputes. The Tribunal noted that the corporate debtor failed to raise any dispute within ten days of receiving the demand notice, as required under Section 8(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Consequently, the Tribunal held that no pre-existing dispute existed.

3. Validity of the Demand Notice:
The corporate debtor argued that the demand notice was invalid as it was sent by the sole proprietorship firm. However, the Tribunal found that the demand notice was sent through the proprietor, Ms. Shipra Somani, and not in the name of the firm. Therefore, the demand notice was valid and maintainable under Section 8(1) of the IBC.

4. Settlement of the Outstanding Debt through WhatsApp Communications:
The corporate debtor relied on WhatsApp messages to claim that a settlement was reached. The Tribunal examined the WhatsApp messages and found no written settlement agreement between the parties. The Tribunal held that the corporate debtor's claim of settlement was baseless and that the outstanding amount was due.

5. Admission of the Application and Initiation of CIRP:
The Tribunal found that the operational creditor's application was complete, and there was no payment of the unpaid operational debt. No notice of dispute was received by the operational creditor, and there was no record of dispute in the information utility. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the CIRP against the corporate debtor. A moratorium was imposed under Section 14 of the IBC, and Mr. Anand Sonbhadra was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the application filed by the operational creditor, initiated the CIRP against the corporate debtor, and imposed a moratorium. Mr. Anand Sonbhadra was appointed as the IRP, and the operational creditor was directed to deposit the fee for the IRP's immediate expenses. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the IRP and both parties.

---