Operational debt and genuine dispute test under Section 9 bars insolvency misuse as a recovery tool

An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can proceed only where an operational debt is shown to be due and payable and there is no genuine pre-existing dispute. Here, the claim was tested against the purchase order terms, the materials supplied and objections that the goods were of inferior quality, but the record did not satisfactorily establish conformity with contractual requirements or the amount claimed. The Tribunal treated the filing as having a debt-recovery character and found that Section 9 cannot be used as a substitute for recovery proceedings. The application was rejected for want of a fit case for admission.

---

---

Issues: Whether the operational creditor had established an operational debt due and payable without a genuine dispute so as to warrant admission of the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The claim was examined against the purchase order terms, the materials supplied, and the objections regarding inferior quality. The record did not satisfactorily show that the disputed material conformed to the contractual requirements or that the amount claimed was duly established on the available documents. The Tribunal also noted that the application was used in a manner akin to debt recovery, whereas Section 9 proceedings require proof of an undisputed operational debt and are not meant to function as a recovery mechanism.

Conclusion: The operational creditor failed to establish a fit case for admission under Section 9, and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 9 can be admitted only when an operational debt is shown to be due and payable and there is no pre-existing dispute; if the claim is not substantiated and the dispute is genuine, CIRP cannot be initiated as a substitute for recovery.

---