Appellate Tribunal upholds dismissal of application under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the dismissal of the application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to the absence of a debt payable. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not within its jurisdiction to determine the genuineness of the documents submitted and directed the Appellant to seek relief from the Appropriate Forum. The matter was instructed to be decided independently of previous orders, and the appeal was disposed of without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Dismissal of application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 due to lack of debt payable.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal, consisting of Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya, Justice A.I.S. Cheema, and Kanthi Narahari, heard the appeal filed by 'Global Infonet Distribution Pvt. Ltd.' against the dismissal of their application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against 'Tespa Infotech Pvt. Ltd.' The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the application citing the absence of a debt payable. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the records and the stand taken by the Corporate Debtor ('Tespa Infotech Pvt. Ltd.').

In reference to the case of "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407," the Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's observation that the Corporate Debtor can contest the occurrence of a default by asserting that the debt is not due in law or in fact, which may include a disputed claim. The Appellant argued that the documents submitted by the Respondent were fictitious, but the Tribunal clarified that it was not within its jurisdiction to determine the genuineness of the documents. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority's decision did not provide finality on the authenticity of the documents presented before it.

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the Impugned Order and directed the Appellant to seek relief from the Appropriate Forum. The Appropriate Forum was instructed to decide the matter on its merits independently of the previous orders from the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned observations, and no costs were awarded in this case.

---