Dispute Over Operational Debt Leads to Rejection of Insolvency Application

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, rejected the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to the existence of a genuine pre-existing dispute regarding the operational debt claimed by the applicant against the respondent company. The Tribunal emphasized that the presence of a plausible dispute necessitates the rejection of the application, citing relevant precedents. The Tribunal clarified that its decision should not prejudice the applicant's rights in other forums and directed communication of the order to the parties as per the provisions of the Code.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. Validity of the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Existence of operational debt and default.
4. Existence of a pre-existing dispute.
5. Admissibility of the claim and the Tribunal’s authority to adjudicate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal's jurisdiction was established based on the registered office of the respondent company, M/S NTPC GE Power Services Private Limited, being situated in New Delhi. Therefore, the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, has territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

2. Validity of the Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The application was filed by M/S New Engineering Works under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent company. The application was supported by Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

3. Existence of Operational Debt and Default:
The applicant claimed an operational debt of Rs. 1,33,40,071/- for completed work under the work orders and additional bills amounting to Rs. 1,42,72,787/-. The respondent company acknowledged partial payment but disputed the remaining amount, arguing that the additional work bills were never certified or acknowledged and were raised unilaterally by the applicant.

4. Existence of a Pre-existing Dispute:
The respondent company raised a pre-existing dispute regarding the additional work bills and liquidated damages due to delays in project completion. The respondent cited their letters dated 18.03.2019 and 20.03.2019, which were sent in response to the applicant’s demand notice, highlighting the existence of disputes about the additional work and liquidated damages. The Tribunal emphasized that the existence of a pre-existing dispute, as defined under Section 5(6) of the Code, disqualifies the application under Section 9.

5. Admissibility of the Claim and the Tribunal’s Authority to Adjudicate:
The Tribunal referred to Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code, which mandates rejection of the application if a notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor. The Tribunal noted that the respondent’s dispute was genuine and pre-existed the notice under Section 8. The Tribunal cannot adjudicate the merits of the dispute but only determine if a real dispute exists. The Tribunal cited precedents, including the Mobilox Innovations Private Limited case, to support the view that the presence of a plausible dispute necessitates rejection of the application.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was a genuine pre-existing dispute regarding the operational debt claimed by the applicant. Consequently, the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was rejected. The Tribunal clarified that its observations should not prejudice the applicant's rights in other forums and directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the parties as per Section 9(5)(ii) of the Code.

---