Petition dismissed as petitioner not operational creditor under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.

The tribunal dismissed the petition as the petitioner was not considered an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The dispute stemmed from a breach of the Memorandum of Understanding rather than the provision of goods or services, leading to the petition's dismissal on maintainability grounds. The tribunal suggested seeking alternative recourse for enforcing the claim.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application due to alleged prior dispute.
2. Legitimacy of debit notes raised by the petitioner.
3. Existence of debt acknowledgment by the corporate debtor.
4. Classification of the petitioner as an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application Due to Alleged Prior Dispute:
The respondent/corporate debtor argued that the application is not maintainable due to an existing prior dispute between the parties. The tribunal examined the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 15.01.2015, which was terminated on 14.01.2016. The tribunal found that the dispute arose from an alleged breach of the MoU. The tribunal noted that if there was any loss to the petitioner due to the MoU, the petitioner should have acted sooner rather than waiting from 14.01.2016 until the filing of the application.

2. Legitimacy of Debit Notes Raised by the Petitioner:
The respondent contested the validity of the debit notes raised by the petitioner, claiming they were untenable and illegal. The tribunal reviewed Clause 7 of the MoU, which stipulated that marketing costs incurred by the petitioner would be reimbursed by the corporate debtor upon submission of debit notes with supporting documents. The tribunal found that the petitioner had complied with this clause and submitted the necessary documentation.

3. Existence of Debt Acknowledgment by the Corporate Debtor:
The respondent denied any acceptance or admission of the debt claimed by the petitioner. However, the tribunal noted that the corporate debtor had acknowledged the debit notes and agreed to transfer AED 45,000 to the petitioner, indicating an acknowledgment of some debt. Despite this, the tribunal emphasized that the main issue was whether this acknowledgment constituted an operational debt under the IBC.

4. Classification of the Petitioner as an Operational Creditor Under the IBC:
The tribunal analyzed the definitions of "creditors," "operational creditor," and "operational debt" under Sections 3(10), 5(20), and 5(21) of the IBC. It concluded that the debt could only be considered an "operational debt" if it arose from the provision of goods or services, including employment or repayment of dues to the government. The tribunal found that the petitioner did not supply any goods or services to the corporate debtor but rather had a marketing arrangement under the MoU. Therefore, the tribunal determined that the petitioner did not qualify as an operational creditor under the IBC.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the petition, stating that there was no relationship of an operational creditor and corporate debtor between the petitioner and the respondent. The tribunal held that the claim arose from a breach of the MoU and not from the provision of goods or services. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability under the IBC. However, the tribunal noted that the petitioner could seek recourse before another competent forum to enforce its claim.

---