Tribunal dismisses Company Application for Insolvency due to ongoing dispute over Clinker supply

The Tribunal dismissed the Company Application filed by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dismissal was due to the presence of an ongoing dispute between the parties regarding the quality and payment for the supplied Clinker, rendering the petition inadmissible under Section 9 of the Code. The Tribunal granted liberty to proceed as per the law and exempted the time spent on the proceedings under the Limitation Act, 1963.

---

---

Issues:
Company Application filed by Operational Creditor against Corporate Debtor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 due to non-payment of invoices and deposits.

Analysis:
1. The Operational Creditor entered into an agreement with the Corporate Debtor for supplying Clinker and paid Earnest Money Deposit and Security Deposit. The Corporate Debtor failed to pay for the supplied Clinker as per the invoices issued, leading to the Company Application under Section 9 of the Code.

2. The Corporate Debtor claimed a quality issue with the supplied Clinker, alleging it was different from the sample and of poor quality. They notified the Operational Creditor about the quality concern and directed to stop further supply from one source and switch to another. The Operational Creditor complied and supplied from the new source.

3. The Operational Creditor issued a legal notice for non-payment, highlighting the outstanding amounts and demanding payment. The Corporate Debtor responded, acknowledging the dispute over the quality of the supplied Clinker and expressing difficulties in settling payments due to financial constraints.

4. The correspondence between the parties revealed a dispute regarding the quality of Clinker supplied through specific invoices. The Corporate Debtor maintained that the quality issue must be resolved before payment, indicating an existing dispute.

5. The Corporate Debtor's argument that the dispute existed since the initial quality concerns were raised was supported by the email communication and subsequent responses regarding the rejection of the second shipment due to quality issues.

6. The Tribunal emphasized that the existence of a dispute at the time of issuing the Section 8 notice was crucial. The Operational Creditor's inclusion of disputed claims in the petition under Section 9 rendered it inadmissible due to the ongoing dispute.

7. The Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition as misconceived, granting liberty to proceed as per the law and exempting the time spent on the proceedings under the Limitation Act, 1963. The decision was based on the clear presence of a dispute between the parties regarding the quality and payment for the supplied Clinker.

---