Dismissal of CIRP Petition Due to Pre-existing Dispute & Conflict of Interest

The Tribunal dismissed the petition to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as there was a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties, highlighting the necessity to address such disputes before pursuing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Operational Creditor's claim for outstanding payment was rejected due to the acknowledged partial payment by the Corporate Debtor and the existence of a dispute predating the demand notice. The Tribunal also noted the conflict of interest involving the Managing Partner of the Operational Creditor and related party transactions lacking board approval.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of debt and default by the Corporate Debtor.
2. Pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor.
3. Authority and validity of the petition filed by the Operational Creditor.
4. Related party transactions under Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of Debt and Default by the Corporate Debtor:
The Operational Creditor, M/s. Sagaya Annai Associates, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against M/s. Stores N Move Private Limited, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Operational Creditor claimed a sum of Rs. 32.94 lakh was due for services rendered, specifically manpower supply. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged partial payment but disputed the remaining amount.

2. Pre-existing Dispute Between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor argued that there was a pre-existing dispute, evidenced by email correspondences from 2016 and 2017, which indicated ongoing disagreements about the debt. The Tribunal noted the existence of a dispute as early as 2016, prior to the issuance of the demand notice in 2018. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd., which emphasized that any pre-existing dispute must be considered before admitting a CIRP application.

3. Authority and Validity of the Petition Filed by the Operational Creditor:
The Corporate Debtor challenged the authority of the Operational Creditor's Managing Partner, who held a significant stake in the Corporate Debtor, to file the petition. The Tribunal found that the Managing Partner, holding 36.84% of the Corporate Debtor’s shares, had also filed a separate petition alleging oppression and mismanagement, indicating a conflict of interest and further supporting the existence of a dispute.

4. Related Party Transactions Under Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the transactions between the parties were related party transactions requiring board approval, which was not obtained. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the financial statements and auditor’s report classified these transactions as related party transactions. The Tribunal rejected the Operational Creditor’s argument that the transactions were in the ordinary course of business and exempt from Section 188 requirements.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties, which was not spurious or illusory. Consequently, the petition to initiate CIRP was dismissed without costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of resolving any pre-existing disputes before proceeding with insolvency applications under the IBC.

---