Application Dismissed: Improper Authorization & Debt Dispute

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to improper authorization for issuing the demand notice, a plausible dispute regarding the operational debt, and non-compliance with Section 9(3)(c) of IBC, 2016. The dismissal does not prevent the Operational Creditor from pursuing other legal avenues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period applicability under IBC, 2016.
2. Authorization to issue demand notice under Section 8 of IBC, 2016.
3. Existence of dispute regarding the operational debt.
4. Compliance with Section 9(3)(c) of IBC, 2016.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period Applicability under IBC, 2016:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the claim was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the Tribunal referred to judgments by the Hon'ble NCLAT, particularly in the case of Black Pearl Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Planet M Retail Ltd., where it was held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to IBC, 2016. The Tribunal reiterated that the right to apply under IBC, 2016 accrues only from 1st December 2016, and thus, the plea of limitation raised by the Corporate Debtor was not considered.

2. Authorization to Issue Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC, 2016:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the demand notice issued under Section 8 was not signed by an authorized person. The Tribunal examined the authorization of Mr. Satish Kumar K, who signed the notice, and found that the authorization letter was dated 22.08.2017, which was posterior to the date of the notice (24.04.2017). The Tribunal cited the judgment in Shriram EPC Ltd. v. Rio Glass Solar SA, emphasizing that the notice must be signed by a person holding a position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor and duly authorized by the Board of Directors. Since Mr. Satish Kumar K was not authorized at the time of issuing the notice, the Tribunal found the notice invalid.

3. Existence of Dispute Regarding the Operational Debt:
The Corporate Debtor raised multiple grounds indicating the existence of a dispute:
- Inconsistencies in the amounts claimed in different communications.
- Discrepancies in the invoices and payments.
- The project was not completed, and the Operational Creditor had admitted to only partial execution.
The Tribunal noted these inconsistencies and referenced the Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. case, which stated that if a plausible contention requiring further investigation exists, the application should be rejected. The Tribunal concluded that there was a genuine dispute, making the summary jurisdiction inappropriate for resolving the matter.

4. Compliance with Section 9(3)(c) of IBC, 2016:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the Operational Creditor failed to comply with Section 9(3)(c) of IBC, 2016, which requires a certificate from the financial institution confirming the non-payment of the operational debt. The Tribunal found that the certificates produced by the Operational Creditor were inconsistent with the admitted payments and claims. The Tribunal held that the onus is on the Operational Creditor to establish the debt unequivocally, which was not met in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds of improper authorization for issuing the demand notice, existence of a plausible dispute regarding the operational debt, and non-compliance with Section 9(3)(c) of IBC, 2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the dismissal does not preclude the Operational Creditor from seeking other legal remedies.

---