Petition rejected: Genuine dispute, invalid demand notice; fails legal requirements.

The petition was rejected due to the existence of a genuine dispute between the parties and the invalidity of the demand notice. The Tribunal concluded that the petition did not meet the necessary legal requirements for admission under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 9 (3) (c) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.
2. Timeliness of the claim.
3. Existence of a dispute between the parties.
4. Validity of the demand notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 9 (3) (c) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code:
The respondent contended that the certificate from the Financial Institution was not in conformity with Section 9 (3) (c) of the Code. The petitioner provided a certificate from Corporation Bank dated 12.07.2017, stating no payment from the respondent since 12.05.2016, except Rs. 6969/- on 18.05.2017. The Tribunal held that the certificate was sufficient, as Section 9 (3) (c) requires confirmation of no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, and the petitioner's bank statement from 11.05.2016 to 14.08.2017 showed proper compliance.

2. Timeliness of the Claim:
The respondent argued that the claim was time-barred. However, the Tribunal noted that part payment was made on 12.05.2016, starting a fresh period of limitation. Therefore, the claim was within the permissible time frame.

3. Existence of a Dispute Between the Parties:
The Tribunal examined whether a dispute existed that would disqualify the petitioner's claim. The respondent cited various discrepancies in the invoices, such as multiple invoices dated 01.03.2017 for services allegedly provided in 2014 and 2015, and inconsistencies in work completion certificates. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in "Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited," which mandates rejection of the application if there is a plausible contention requiring further investigation. The Tribunal found that the discrepancies and the respondent’s consistent disputes over invoices indicated a genuine dispute, disqualifying the petitioner from an order of admission.

4. Validity of the Demand Notice:
The Tribunal scrutinized the validity of the demand notice sent by the petitioner. The petitioner sent 47 invoices dated 06.03.2017, but only 16 were annexed with the demand notice. The Tribunal emphasized that the basis of the claim was the invoices, not the ledger account entries. The Tribunal ruled that the demand notice was invalid as it did not include all relevant invoices, failing to establish the operational debt and the amount in default.

Conclusion:
The petition was rejected due to the existence of a genuine dispute between the parties and the invalidity of the demand notice. The Tribunal concluded that the petition did not meet the necessary legal requirements for admission under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The decision was communicated to both parties.

---