Petition Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence for Interest Claim

The tribunal dismissed the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as the principal debt was paid, but the interest claim lacked substantiation. The petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence for the interest claim rendered the operational debt unascertainable, leading to the petition's dismissal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner can press for the admission of the petition only in respect of the interest amount after receiving the principal operational debt amount.
2. Validity and enforceability of the balance confirmation letter dated 04.04.2016.
3. Eligibility and substantiation of the claim of interest as part of the operational debt.
4. Admissibility of evidence provided by the petitioner to support the claim of interest.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioner can press for the admission of the petition only in respect of the interest amount after receiving the principal operational debt amount:
The tribunal examined whether the petitioner could continue to press for the admission of the petition solely for the outstanding interest amount after the principal debt was paid. The principal amount of Rs. 25,88,957/- was paid by the respondent on 18.12.2017, but the petitioner demanded the interest amounting to Rs. 37,25,921/-. The tribunal noted that the petitioner did not revise the claim of outstanding debt and the eligibility of the interest claim was challenged by the respondent.

2. Validity and enforceability of the balance confirmation letter dated 04.04.2016:
The respondent argued that the balance confirmation letter dated 04.04.2016 was not valid as the signatory was not an authorized person of the company. The tribunal found that the petitioner relied heavily on this document, which was controversial, and thus questioned its validity as a basis for the debt claim. The petitioner was also asked to furnish details of invoices and goods supplied, which were not adequately provided.

3. Eligibility and substantiation of the claim of interest as part of the operational debt:
The tribunal scrutinized whether the claim of interest was part of the operational debt. The petitioner argued that the interest was part of the operational debt as per the petition. However, the respondent contended that there was no agreement for the payment of interest, nor was there a clause about the rate of interest in the purchase order. The tribunal emphasized that for a claim to be enforceable, it must be supported by cogent evidence, which was missing in this case. The petitioner failed to provide a written instrument acknowledging the liability of interest payment and the rate at which interest was to be charged.

4. Admissibility of evidence provided by the petitioner to support the claim of interest:
The tribunal noted that the petitioner did not submit a copy of the ledger account of the respondent company as appearing in its books of account to demonstrate that the interest amount had been accounted for. The tribunal found that the petitioner’s evidence, such as a computer-generated calculation sheet, was self-serving and not admissible under the law. The absence of corroborative evidence, such as the ledger account or tax declarations, weakened the petitioner’s claim for interest.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that since the principal amount of debt had been paid and accepted by the petitioner, and the claim of interest remained unsubstantiated due to the lack of cogent evidence, the operational debt in question remained unascertainable. Consequently, the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---