Tribunal rejects petition due to pre-existing dispute over debt. Parties to bear costs.

The tribunal rejected the petition under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to a pre-existing dispute regarding the claimed debt between GUJCOT and STI India. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the tribunal clarified that its findings should not be considered a final decision on the petitioner's claim, allowing the petitioner to pursue its rights in other forums, including the pending suit.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether GUJCOT is an Operational Creditor of STI India.
2. Whether there is a pre-existing dispute regarding the claimed debt.
3. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the context of insolvency resolution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether GUJCOT is an Operational Creditor of STI India:

The petitioner, GUJCOT, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming an outstanding principal amount of Rs. 42.25 Crores and interest of Rs. 61.59 Crores from the Corporate Debtor, STI India. GUJCOT asserted that it supplied cotton bales to STI India, resulting in the claimed debt. However, STI India contended that the liability was transferred to STI Finance with GUJCOT's approval, and thus, GUJCOT is not an Operational Creditor of STI India. This contention was supported by a letter dated 1st March 2005 from GUJCOT's Managing Director. The tribunal noted that the proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) were inconclusive regarding whether the liability was of STI India or STI Finance.

2. Whether there is a pre-existing dispute regarding the claimed debt:

STI India raised several points indicating a pre-existing dispute:
- The liability of Rs. 42.25 Crores was transferred to STI Finance.
- GUJCOT had agreed to waive the interest and penalty on the principal amount, as evidenced by a letter dated 29th January 2005.
- The disagreement was previously adjudicated by the BIFR.
- A suit (Summary Lavad Case No. 214 of 2003) was pending before the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, concerning the claimed amount.
The tribunal referred to Section 5(6) of the Code, which defines 'dispute' and noted that the existence of a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to the debt constitutes a dispute. The tribunal found that a dispute regarding the debt existed before the issuance of the Demand Notice by GUJCOT, thus fulfilling the criteria under Section 5(6) of the Code.

3. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the context of insolvency resolution:

The tribunal addressed the argument that under Section 60 of the Code, the NCLT has jurisdiction over insolvency matters of corporate debtors and their personal guarantors. However, it clarified that the jurisdiction to decide claims against the Corporate Debtor arises only after the admission of the insolvency petition. Section 9(5) of the Code mandates the rejection of the petition if there is a notice of dispute. The tribunal emphasized that the provisions of Section 9 must be adhered to, and the jurisdiction conferred by Section 60 or Section 280 of the Companies Act, 2013, does not override the requirement to reject a petition when a dispute exists.

Conclusion:

The tribunal concluded that the petition must be rejected under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code due to the pre-existing dispute regarding the claimed debt. The tribunal directed both parties to bear their own costs and clarified that the findings in the order should not be construed as a definitive opinion on the claim of the petitioner. The order does not prevent the petitioner from pursuing its rights in other forums, including the pending suit.

---