Appeal dismissed in dispute over unpaid service charges highlights importance of clear agreements in financial transactions.

The appeal against the rejection of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was dismissed. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, claimed unpaid service charges for facilitating a loan for the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application due to a dispute over the outstanding amount and the absence of an engagement agreement for service charges. Despite presenting communications with the Corporate Debtor, the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The case underscores the importance of documenting agreements in financial transactions to avoid legal disputes.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
- Dispute over outstanding amount claimed by the Applicant.
- Existence of engagement agreement for service charges.
- Failure to provide evidence of services rendered by the Operational Creditor.
- Allegation of undue haste in deciding the application by the Adjudicating Authority.
- Interpretation of section 70 of the Contract Act regarding gratuitous acts.
- Lack of documentation supporting the claim of service charge by the Appellant.
- Communication between the parties regarding the loan sanctioning proposal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the rejection of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, claimed that they facilitated a loan of Rs. 25 crores for the Corporate Debtor and invoiced for service charges amounting to Rs. 29.50 lacs, which remained unpaid. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application citing a dispute over the outstanding amount and the absence of an engagement agreement for service charges. The Appellant argued that services were rendered, and the invoices were not disputed by the Corporate Debtor.

The Adjudicating Authority's decision was challenged on the grounds of not appreciating the evidence of services rendered and passing the order hastily without proper document review. The Appellant contended that as per industry standards, a service provider is entitled to 2% of the sanctioned loan amount, emphasizing the non-gratuitous nature of the services provided. However, the lack of documentation supporting the claim of service charge and engagement agreement worked against the Appellant's case.

The Appellant presented email and WhatsApp communications as evidence of discussions with the Corporate Debtor regarding the loan sanctioning proposal. Despite this, the Tribunal found the documents insufficient to establish a clear engagement for service charges and the rate thereof. The Tribunal concluded that there was a lack of evidence to prove the amount was due and payable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of documenting engagements and service agreements in financial transactions to avoid disputes and ensure clarity in legal proceedings.

---