2019 (10) TMI 1348 - Tri - IBC

Tribunal Rejects Insolvency Petition for Payment Default, Emphasizes Proper Use of Proceedings for Debt Recovery.

Enkay Technologies (India) Private Limited Versus Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited

The NCLT dismissed the petition filed by the Operational Creditor seeking to initiate the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for an alleged payment default ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is settled position of law that Corporate Insolvency Process can be initiated only justified reasons, in the light of object of Code and it cannot be initiated in a casual way proceedings under the Code and it would have serious civil Consequences on Corporate Debtor, more so when Corporate Debtor is solvent Company having so many employees depending on it for their livelihood. It is settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited, [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. The petitioner failed to establish case so as to initiate CIRP as prayed for and thus it is liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed. Issues:Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the IBC based on default in payment by the Corporate Debtor.Analysis:1. The Petitioner, an Operational Creditor, filed a petition seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent, a Corporate Debtor, for defaulting on payments totaling Rs. 4,99,534 along with interest at 18% per annum. The Petitioner complied with all requirements, delivered products, and raised invoices, but the Respondent made irregular payments, resulting in the outstanding amount.2. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner did not act in good faith, claiming the amount not due. The Respondent, a solvent company with a significant turnover and employees, argued that the Petitioner supplied defective materials, did not complete work as per purchase orders, and made unjustifiable claims. The Respondent made partial payments and attempted to resolve the dispute without success.3. The Tribunal conducted multiple hearings to allow both parties to settle the dispute amicably. The Respondent, through its Managing Director, acknowledged the payment made and presented a demand draft to settle a portion of the outstanding amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the Insolvency Process should not be misused for mere recovery and highlighted the need for undisputed debt to initiate the process.4. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the requirements for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, including the existence of operational debt exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, documentary evidence of the debt, and absence of disputes or pending legal actions. The Tribunal found that the Petitioner failed to establish a case warranting the initiation of CIRP and dismissed the petition without prejudice to other legal remedies available to the Respondent.5. The Tribunal's final order dismissed the petition, allowing the Respondent to pursue alternative legal remedies. The decision highlighted the importance of meeting the legal criteria for initiating insolvency proceedings and cautioned against using the process for mere debt recovery. No costs were awarded, and the Tribunal refrained from expressing an opinion on the Respondent's counter-allegations.