TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses petition under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, citing lack of evidence.</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, ruling in favor of the Corporate Debtor. The claim for unpaid ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not been able to establish a contractual relationship with the corporate Debtor, as the very basis of claim namely the Invoice is in the name of Arogyam Hospital(third party) and as such the claim does not tantamount to a debt under Sec 5(21) of I & B code. The claim of fee at best could be a referral fee which is untenable in law and opposed to principles and guidelines, as laid down by Medical Council of India. Petition dismissed without costs. Issues Involved:1. Application under section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).2. Claim of unpaid amount by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor.3. Dispute regarding contractual relationship between the parties.4. Legal implications of the contractual terms and agreements.5. Application of Medical Council rules on referral fees and commissions in the case.Analysis:Issue 1: Application under section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy CodeThe application CP (IB) 3525/MB/2019 was filed by the Operational Creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor for the unpaid amount of Rs. 11,03,150/- along with interest.Issue 2: Claim of unpaid amountThe Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor failed to make timely payments for pathology services provided, resulting in a due amount of Rs. 11,03,150/-. Despite demands and a returned cheque for insufficient funds, the debt remained unpaid, leading to the insolvency application.Issue 3: Dispute regarding contractual relationshipThe Corporate Debtor contested the claim, arguing that the Petitioner was not registered under the Partnership Act and that the contractual relationship was with another entity, not directly with the Corporate Debtor. They denied any liability towards the debt claimed by the Petitioner.Issue 4: Legal implications of contractual termsThe parties presented conflicting arguments regarding the contractual relationship, invoicing, and payment obligations. The Tribunal noted the lack of clarity in the contractual arrangements and the absence of invoices raised against the Corporate Debtor directly, leading to doubts about the enforceability of the claimed debt.Issue 5: Application of Medical Council rulesThe Corporate Debtor raised concerns about the legality of fee-sharing arrangements and referral fees as per the Medical Council rules. They argued that such practices are prohibited and any claims based on such arrangements are unenforceable, further challenging the nature of the claimed debt.Conclusion:After considering the submissions and arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, citing the lack of a proven contractual relationship between the parties and the absence of a direct debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal also highlighted the legal implications of fee-sharing agreements in the medical profession, emphasizing the need for compliance with regulations. The decision was made without imposing any costs on either party, and the Registry was instructed to communicate the order accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
