Tribunal dismisses petition due to lack of operational debt claim and pre-existing dispute.

The Tribunal held that the amount claimed by the Operational Creditor did not meet the criteria of "Operational Debt" under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Petitioner was not considered an "Operational Creditor" under Section 5(20) of the Code. The existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties further led to the dismissal of the Petition without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount claimed by the Operational Creditor qualifies as "Operational Debt" under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016).
2. Whether the Petitioner qualifies as an "Operational Creditor" under Section 5(20) of IBC, 2016.
3. Whether there exists a pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor.
4. The relevance and applicability of the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) in the context of the lease agreements and the IBC, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Qualification of Amount as "Operational Debt":
The Tribunal examined whether the claimed amount by the Operational Creditor falls within the definition of "Operational Debt" under Section 5(21) of IBC, 2016. The Operational Creditor argued that the refundable security deposit under the lease agreements should be considered as "Operational Debt" since it pertains to services rendered in the form of leasing immovable property. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in *Satish Mittal v. Ozone Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd.*, which clarified that claims not related to goods, services, employment, or statutory dues do not qualify as "Operational Debt." The Tribunal concluded that the refundable security deposit does not meet the criteria of "Operational Debt" as it is not related to the supply of goods or services.

2. Qualification as "Operational Creditor":
The Tribunal analyzed whether the Petitioner could be considered an "Operational Creditor" under Section 5(20) of IBC, 2016. The Operational Creditor relied on the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee report, which suggested that lessors could be considered operational creditors. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Corporate Debtor, being the lessor, provided the service of leasing the property, and thus the Operational Creditor, as the lessee, does not fall under the definition of "Operational Creditor." The Tribunal reiterated that for a claim to be considered "Operational Debt," it must arise from the supply of goods or services, which was not the case here.

3. Pre-existing Dispute:
The Tribunal considered whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Corporate Debtor had raised a dispute regarding the delayed return of the leased property, leading to financial losses. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited*, which stated that a plausible dispute suffices to reject a claim under IBC, 2016. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had raised a legitimate dispute regarding the lease termination and the financial losses incurred, which precluded the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

4. Relevance and Applicability of the MoS:
The Tribunal examined the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) between the parties, which stipulated the refund of the security deposit in installments. The Corporate Debtor argued that the MoS was not properly stamped and sought to amend the lease provisions. The Tribunal noted that the MoS could not override the statutory definitions and requirements under IBC, 2016. The Tribunal also observed that the MoS did not transform the nature of the claim into an "Operational Debt" as defined under the Code.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the amount claimed by the Operational Creditor does not qualify as "Operational Debt" under Section 5(21) of IBC, 2016, and the Petitioner does not qualify as an "Operational Creditor" under Section 5(20) of IBC, 2016. Additionally, the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties further invalidated the claim. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed without costs.

---