Tribunal dismisses petition for insolvency process due to legitimate deductions

The Tribunal dismissed the petition seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor for default in payment. The deductions made by the Corporate Debtor were deemed legitimate under the terms of the agreement, with a pre-existing dispute existing between the parties. The Tribunal ruled that the deducted amount did not qualify as an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the absence of a liability to pay the amount. Citing the presence of a genuine dispute, the Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision and granted liberty to the Petitioner to pursue legal remedies.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment by the Corporate Debtor.
2. Validity of the deductions made by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Existence of a pre-existing dispute.
4. Classification of the deducted amount as an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Payment by the Corporate Debtor:
The Petitioner, a sole proprietor, filed a company petition seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor for a default in payment amounting to Rs. 34,66,549/-. The Petitioner alleged that the Corporate Debtor deducted Rs. 12,45,351/- and Rs. 22,21,197/- without prior notice or terms and conditions, which constituted a default under Section 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

2. Validity of the Deductions Made by the Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the deductions were legitimate and in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The agreement authorized the Corporate Debtor to deduct Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) charges from the transaction amounts without prior notification. Due to a technical error, the Corporate Debtor had not recovered the MDR charges from January 2018 to September 2018, which led to the subsequent deduction of Rs. 34,66,549/- upon discovering the glitch. The Corporate Debtor argued that these deductions were legitimate fees arising out of contractual obligations.

3. Existence of a Pre-existing Dispute:
The Corporate Debtor argued that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the claims made by the Petitioner. The dispute was raised prior to the issuance of the demand notice dated 19.12.2019. The Corporate Debtor had communicated the issue and the legitimacy of the deductions through an email dated 08.10.2018, which was much before the demand notice. The Tribunal found that the dispute was genuine and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory.

4. Classification of the Deducted Amount as an Operational Debt:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the deducted amount did not constitute a claim under the IBC since there was no liability or obligation to pay such amount to the Petitioner. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the claim made by the Petitioner did not qualify as an operational debt under the IBC. The Tribunal emphasized that since there was no debt due towards the Petitioner by the Corporate Debtor, there could be no default.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the petition, citing the existence of a plausible dispute and the absence of a default under the IBC. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Limited, which held that an adjudicating authority must reject an application if a genuine dispute exists. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Petitioner to seek redressal through appropriate legal channels without being influenced by the Tribunal's observations.

Separate Judgments:
No separate judgments were delivered by the judges in this case.

---