Enforceable operational debt not proved where unsigned documents and accepted remuneration structure defeated the creditor's section 9 claim.

An operational creditor failed to establish an enforceable liability or operational debt for admission of a petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The claim rested on an offer letter and an unsigned memorandum of understanding, but the offer letter required signed acceptance for formalisation and no accepted copy was produced. The record instead showed a board-approved remuneration structure, continued service under that structure, and no contemporaneous objection to the salary paid. On these facts, the alleged higher contractual liability was not proved, no privity of contract was established on the unsigned documents, and the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the operational creditor established an enforceable liability and operational debt so as to warrant admission of the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The claim was founded on an offer letter and an unsigned memorandum of understanding. The offer letter expressly required signed acceptance for formalisation, but no accepted copy was produced. The materials on record also showed a board-approved remuneration structure, continued service under that remuneration, and no contemporaneous objection to the salary paid. In these circumstances, the alleged higher contractual liability was not proved and no privity of contract or enforceable debt was established on the basis of the unsigned documents.

Conclusion: The petition was not liable to be admitted and was rejected.

---