Appeal Dismissed: Insufficient Evidence for Insolvency Claim

The Appellant's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority due to insufficient evidence of debt and default. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, noting the lack of supporting documents and the disputed nature of the evidence presented. The Tribunal ruled that the issue of default should be resolved in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal but allowing the Appellant to pursue legal remedies elsewhere.

---

---

Issues:
Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 rejected due to lack of evidence of debt and default.

Analysis:
The Appellant, claiming to be an 'Operational Creditor,' filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority in Chennai for not providing evidence related to debt and default. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the case after hearing counsels for both parties and examining the records.

The application included Form 5, detailing the 'particulars of operational debt,' which required documents, records, and evidence of default. However, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant did not enclose any document, record, or evidence of default, marking them as 'not applicable' or leaving them blank.

The Appellant's counsel tried to rely on an invoice dated 22nd January, 2018, to show evidence of default, where the buyer was mentioned as 'Perfect IT Solution.' However, the Adjudicating Authority concluded that the buyer was 'Perfect IT Solution' and not the Respondent, 'Sify Technologies Limited.'

The Appellant argued that 'Perfect IT Solution' was an agent of 'Sify Technologies Limited,' as admitted in the Demand Notice. However, the Tribunal stated that as per the invoice, the buyer was 'Perfect IT Solution,' creating a disputed question of fact. The Tribunal found this issue beyond its jurisdiction and stated that it should be decided by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, making the Section 9 application not maintainable.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Appellant was allowed to seek appropriate relief from a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. The Tribunal clarified that its decision would not hinder the Appellant from pursuing further legal remedies.

---