2019 (8) TMI 1799 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

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

M/s. Global Infonet Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Tespa Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the dismissal of the application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt payable in fact or not - validity of records which were submitted by the Respondent before the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- The observations made by the Adjudicating Authority is on the basis of record but it does not mean that the Adjudicating Authority has given any finality with regard to genuineness of the document which was placed before it. The Appellant is directed to move before the Appropriate Forum for relief, in which case, the Appropriate Forum will decide the issue on merit uninfluenced by the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Appellate Tribunal - appeal disposed off. 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.