Appeal denied: Claim not operational debt under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's claim did not constitute "operational debt" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting the establishment of debt by the corporate debtor and emphasized that the respondent, acting as a collecting agent, was not liable for the outstanding amount. Additionally, the application under Section 9 of the IBC was deemed inadmissible as it did not meet the criteria for operational debt. The dismissal highlighted the need for a more detailed examination of factual disputes, signaling that the matter required adjudication in a competent forum.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Establishment of operational debt.
3. Principal-agent relationship and liability.
4. Admissibility of the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed the Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 780 of 2019 with a delay of 15 days beyond the period specified under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The delay was attributed to the late collection of the impugned order due to summer vacation and bereavement in the family of the appellant's counsel. The Tribunal, taking a lenient and liberal view, allowed the interlocutory application for condonation of delay, emphasizing substantial justice.

2. Establishment of Operational Debt:
The appellant, an authorized reseller of Microsoft, claimed that the respondent had accepted liability for payments by receiving invoices and making partial payments. The invoices for the years 2016-2018 were raised on the respondent based on an agreement and understanding among the parties. However, the Adjudicating Authority observed that there was no supportive evidence reflecting the liability of the corporate debtor as per the terms of the alleged purchase order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no establishment of "operational debt" against the corporate debtor, which falls within the definition of "dispute" under Section 5(6) of the IBC.

3. Principal-Agent Relationship and Liability:
The respondent argued that it acted as a "disclosed agent" for the SRS group of companies, with no direct agreement or liability towards the appellant. The respondent contended that the arrangement was for one year and any subsequent invoices were not its responsibility. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not show SRS as a necessary party to prove the nexus of debt payable. The Tribunal found that the respondent, as a collecting agent, could not be held liable for the outstanding amount.

4. Admissibility of the Application under Section 9 of the IBC:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations P. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software P. Ltd., which outlined the conditions for admitting an application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Tribunal emphasized that the claim did not fit within the definition of "operational debt" under Section 5(21) of the IBC, as it was neither against any goods purchased nor any services availed by the respondent. The Tribunal held that the application was not maintainable, as the proceedings under the IBC are not adversarial litigation and cannot be used as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's claim did not fall within the purview of "operational debt" under the IBC. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had raised serious bona fide factual disputes that required in-depth examination, which could not be addressed in summary proceedings under the IBC. The dismissal of the application does not preclude the appellant from seeking appropriate remedies before a competent forum.

---