Court dismisses Company Petition for Corporate Insolvency due to payment default, citing pending civil suit as dispute.

The court dismissed the Company Petition seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor for default in payment, totaling Rs. 23,66,923. The Petitioner's claim included interest charges at 24% per annum. The court considered the dishonored cheques, legal actions taken, and the pending civil suit for recovery. Relying on legal precedents, the court interpreted the pendency of the civil suit as a dispute under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. As a result, the court dismissed the Petition without costs, as the dispute fell under Section 5(6) of the Code.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Corporate Debtor for default in payment.
2. Allegation of default in payment and interest charges.
3. Dishonored cheques and legal actions taken.
4. Civil suit filed for recovery of money.
5. Issuance of demand notice under Section 8 of the Code.
6. Application of legal precedents in determining the existence of a dispute.
7. Interpretation of the pendency of a civil suit as a dispute under the Code.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a Company Petition filed by the Petitioner to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor due to an alleged default in payment amounting to Rs. 23,66,923, including interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The Petition invokes Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, along with relevant rules.

2. The Petitioner supplied TMT Steel materials to the Corporate Debtor and claimed interest at 36% per annum on delayed payments. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged a principal balance of Rs. 18,17,660 as of 31.03.2017, with overdue bills and agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum as late payment charges. However, four cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor were dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to legal actions, including a criminal complaint and a civil suit for recovery.

3. The Petitioner's civil suit for recovery was already pending before the Bombay City Civil Court when a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code was issued on 19.01.2019. The Corporate Debtor contested the civil suit by filing written statements, indicating a dispute over the same set of facts.

4. The judgment references the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Limited, emphasizing the adjudicating authority's role in determining the existence of a plausible contention requiring further investigation regarding a dispute. The judgment highlights the need to differentiate between genuine disputes and spurious defenses, emphasizing that the court does not assess the dispute's likelihood of success at this stage.

5. Furthermore, the judgment cites NCLAT decisions that recognize the pendency of a civil suit as a dispute under the Code. Applying the legal precedents to the case at hand, where a civil suit was already ongoing, the judgment concludes that the Petition should be dismissed as the dispute falls under Section 5(6) of the Code. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed without costs.

---