Petition Dismissed due to Lack of Evidence in Insolvency Case

The Tribunal dismissed the Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to a pre-existing dispute regarding the claimed operational debt of Rs. 61,48,138/-. The Corporate Debtor contested the debt, citing inconsistencies in the Operational Creditor's claims and lack of clear evidence. The Tribunal found that the Operational Creditor failed to establish the debt's existence adequately, emphasizing the need for undisputed evidence. As a result, the Petition was not admitted, and the matter was directed to be closed and recorded accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of Operational Debt
2. Pre-existing Dispute
3. Compliance with Procedural Formalities
4. Adequacy of Evidence

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Existence of Operational Debt:
The Petitioner, an "Operational Creditor," filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming an operational debt of Rs. 61,48,138/- against the Corporate Debtor. The operational debt arose from a Finance Advisory Service agreement for Lease Rental Discounting, with a total fund requirement of Rs. 16.50 Cr. The consideration for the service was set at 3.5% of the sanctioned loan amount. The Operational Creditor assisted the Corporate Debtor in raising funds from Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, resulting in a sanctioned loan of Rs. 17.00 Cr. Despite the completion of the transaction, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the balance advisory fees, leading to the issuance of cheques that were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Pre-existing Dispute:
The Corporate Debtor, in its reply, outrightly rejected the claim, stating that the Operational Creditor played no role in availing the loan from Indiabulls. The Corporate Debtor contended that the invoice claimed by the Operational Creditor was fictitious and never received. The Corporate Debtor argued that the cheques issued were security cheques and not for the payment of services. The Corporate Debtor also denied the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as shown in the Demand Notice and contended that the Operational Creditor did not perform the required services. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the Operational Creditor's claims and noted that the balance sheet did not reflect the alleged trade receivables, indicating a pre-existing dispute.

Compliance with Procedural Formalities:
The Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice under Section 8 of the IBC, seeking payment of the due amount. The Corporate Debtor replied, raising disputes regarding the claimed amount. The Tribunal observed that the Operational Creditor's stance kept changing, and there was no clear evidence of the debt claimed. The Tribunal emphasized that the existence of a dispute prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice was established, and the Petition did not deserve admission.

Adequacy of Evidence:
The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor failed to present clear and consistent evidence regarding the debt. The Operational Creditor's balance sheet did not corroborate the claimed trade receivables. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, which emphasized that the adjudicating authority must reject the application if there is a plausible contention of a dispute supported by evidence. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence of a pre-existing dispute and concluded that the Petition could not be admitted under the Insolvency Code.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Petition, concluding that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the existence of the debt. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope and jurisdiction were limited to the provisions of the Insolvency Code, and the Petitioner could pursue claims under other applicable laws. The Registry was directed to close the file and consign the Petition to records.

---