Petition for Insolvency Denied due to Disputed Debt

The petition for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was filed by the Petitioner against the Corporate Debtor for recovery of unpaid Operational Debt. The Tribunal rejected the petition as there were genuine disputes between the parties regarding delays in work execution, quality of work, and contractual matters. The Tribunal emphasized that the existence of a non-disputed debt is essential for initiating the process and concluded that the petition did not qualify for admission under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

---

---

Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for recovery of unpaid Operational Debt.

Analysis:
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Petitioner on behalf of M/s. ABC India Limited against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Oriental Nicco Projects Private Ltd., seeking recovery of an unpaid Operational Debt amounting to Rs. 78,22,421. The Petitioner had engaged the Respondent company for Civil Construction Work and had submitted several invoices totaling Rs. 6,39,55,775, out of which the Corporate Debtor had paid Rs. 5,31,34,343. Despite repeated requests for the balance payment, the Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment, leading to the filing of the petition on 02.11.2018.

The Respondent argued that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties, and a Money Suit was pending in the City Civil Court, Kolkata. The Respondent claimed that the Petitioner had failed to complete and deliver the contracted civil works within the stipulated time, resulting in delays ranging from 27 to 191 days for different work orders. The Respondent also highlighted issues of slow progress, quality of work, and disputes regarding Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) and liquidated damages as per contract terms.

The Tribunal noted that there were delays in the execution of work, and various correspondences had been exchanged between the parties regarding the progress and payments. The Respondent disputed the claim in response to the Demand Notice and claimed that only Rs. 6,007 was payable, citing deductions and quality issues. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case emphasizing that the Adjudicating Authority must reject the application if there is a plausible contention requiring further investigation and the dispute is not spurious.

The Tribunal concluded that the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor was not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory, as there were genuine issues regarding the delay in work execution, quality of work, and other contractual matters. The Tribunal highlighted that the existence of a non-disputed debt is essential for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the IB Code. Since the dispute was raised before the notice under Section 8 and there was a plausible dispute existing between the parties, the petition was rejected, emphasizing that the forum was not to adjudicate the merits of the respective claims.

The Tribunal clarified that the dismissal of the petition did not prejudice the rights of the Petitioner before any other forum and directed the Registry to communicate the order to both parties, concluding that the petition did not qualify for admission under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

---