Tribunal dismisses Company Petition under Insolvency Code citing lack of jurisdiction & pre-existing dispute

The Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to lack of jurisdiction, existence of a pre-existing dispute requiring reconciliation, and misuse of the IBC as a recovery mechanism. The Petition was considered more suited for recovery proceedings, and the part payment made indicated the matter was not appropriate for insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that IBC should not be used to jeopardize the financial health of a solvent company and that the dispute could be settled through other proceedings. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. Existence of Debt and Default.
3. Reconciliation of Accounts and Pre-existing Dispute.
4. Use of IBC as a Recovery Mechanism.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Respondent contended that the matter falls outside the purview of the Tribunal's jurisdiction as per the provisions of the IBC. The agreements between the parties explicitly stated that disputes would be governed by the Italian Civil Code and adjudicated by the courts in Italy. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Respondent had already initiated legal proceedings before the Tribunal of Vicenza, Italy, which enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Agreement. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, rendering the Petition not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

2. Existence of Debt and Default:
The Petitioner sought to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent for an alleged default amounting to Rs. 5,73,16,772/-. The Tribunal observed that the debt could not be considered clear or undisputed due to the requirement for reconciliation and adjustments of accounts as agreed upon in the Trade Agreement. The Respondent had consistently communicated the need for reconciliation, and a part payment of EUR 87,107 was made on 20th May 2019. The Tribunal found that the debt was not crystallized or undisputed at the time of sending the Demand Notice, and thus, the Petition did not meet the criteria for initiating proceedings under section 9 of the Code.

3. Reconciliation of Accounts and Pre-existing Dispute:
The Respondent argued that the invoices were subject to reconciliation of accounts, and there was a pre-existing dispute over the amounts claimed by the Petitioner. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had raised a bona fide dispute and had initiated legal proceedings in Italy for reconciliation and adjudication of the financial dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's interpretation in Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. was referenced, emphasizing that the existence of a dispute requires adjudication and that the debt must be clear and undisputed. The Tribunal concluded that the pre-existing dispute and the need for reconciliation rendered the Petition unfit for initiating CIRP.

4. Use of IBC as a Recovery Mechanism:
The Tribunal highlighted that the IBC cannot be used as a recovery mechanism to jeopardize the financial health of an otherwise solvent company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company (P.) Ltd. clarified that IBC should not be used prematurely or for extraneous considerations. The Tribunal found that the Petition was essentially a recovery suit disguised as insolvency proceedings, which is not the intended purpose of the IBC. The part payment made by the Respondent further indicated that the matter was more suited for recovery proceedings rather than insolvency.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition in C.P. (IB) No. 294/BB/2019 filed under section 9 of the Code, citing lack of jurisdiction, the existence of a pre-existing dispute, the need for reconciliation, and the misuse of IBC as a recovery mechanism. The order would not preclude any other proceedings to settle the dispute regarding payments due, if any. No order as to costs was made.

---