TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable when the claimant had invoked the remedy under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. (ii) Whether the operational debt and default were sufficiently substantiated for admission of the insolvency petition.
Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable when the claimant had invoked the remedy under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Analysis: The claimant had registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and had issued its notice asserting rights under that statute, including reference to payment obligations and proceedings before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. The Tribunal held that, instead of prosecuting the remedy available under that special enactment, the claimant had filed the insolvency petition. Since the claimant had already elected to proceed under the MSMED framework, the petition under the insolvency law was found to be misconceived.
Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on this ground and the finding was against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the operational debt and default were sufficiently substantiated for admission of the insolvency petition.
Analysis: Apart from the engagement letter and the demand notice, no material was produced to conclusively establish rendition of services, the exact liability, or the claimed outstanding amount in the manner required for admission under the insolvency framework. The Tribunal noted that the demand notice under the insolvency code was not issued in the prescribed manner and that the claim remained unsupported by adequate documents. In these circumstances, the existence of a provable operational debt and default was not demonstrated to the Tribunal's satisfaction.
Conclusion: The operational debt and default were not proved sufficiently, and this finding was against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The insolvency petition was rejected, while leaving the claimant free to pursue the remedies available under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 or any other available law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a claimant has a specific statutory remedy under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and does not satisfactorily establish operational debt and default for insolvency admission, the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is liable to be dismissed.
TaxTMI 
