Tribunal dismisses creditor's claim due to lack of evidence, debt not proven

The tribunal dismissed the operational creditor's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the creditor failed to substantiate the claimed debt of Rs. 2.76,54,650. Despite alleging non-payment, the debtor provided evidence of full settlement until 2014, which the creditor acknowledged. The tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence and ruled that the debt was not proven to be owed by the debtor, leading to the rejection of the application.

---

---

Issues:
Claim of operational debt under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim of operational debt under Section 9 of the Code
The petitioner, an operational creditor, filed an application invoking Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming an operational debt against the respondent, a debtor. The operational creditor alleged non-payment of a bill amounting to Rs. 2.76,54,650, which included a principal amount of Rs. 1,58,00,000 and interest at the rate of 24% p.a. The debtor, on the other hand, contested the claim, stating that the debt did not exist as alleged by the operational creditor.

Analysis: The tribunal examined the submissions made by both parties. The operational creditor stated that legal services were provided to the debtor from 2011 onwards, and invoices were raised for the services rendered. The debtor, however, argued that the operational creditor had been paid in full and final settlement for the services provided until 2014. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the evidence presented by both parties. While the operational creditor claimed non-payment, the debtor produced evidence of payment made in 2014, which was acknowledged by the operational creditor. The tribunal found that the operational creditor failed to substantiate the existence of the debt as claimed under Section 3(11) of the Code. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the petition, ruling that the claimed amount was not proven to be owed by the debtor, and hence, the application was rejected.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the tribunal's decision based on the evidence presented by both parties.

---