Insolvency petition rejected due to pre-existing dispute, citing case law

The Tribunal rejected the insolvency petition filed by M/s. M+R Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. against M/s. AGA Publications Ltd. under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The rejection was based on the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the quality of services provided, as evidenced by email exchanges and a counterclaim in a civil suit. The Tribunal emphasized that the IBC should not be invoked in the presence of a real dispute, citing relevant case law. The application was also deemed to be within the limitation period due to continuous events and the High Court's order directing the transfer of proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Existence of pre-existing dispute
2. Limitation
3. Proper authorization for filing the application

Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of pre-existing dispute:

The Operational Creditor, M/s. M+R Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. AGA Publications Ltd., under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor contended that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of services provided by the Operational Creditor. This was evidenced by email exchanges dated 08.07.2010 and 16.07.2010, where the Operational Creditor acknowledged delays in service and agreed to bear certain costs due to these delays. The Corporate Debtor also raised a counterclaim for losses amounting to Rs. 41,00,000/- in a civil suit (O.S. No. 778 of 2013) filed by the Operational Creditor, which was later dismissed for default. The Tribunal observed that the existence of these disputes was substantiated by the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporate Debtor in the civil suit and the reply to the Demand Notice issued under section 8 of the IBC. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Limited, emphasizing that the IBC is not a substitute for a recovery forum and should not be invoked in the presence of a real dispute.

2. Limitation:

The Corporate Debtor argued that the application was barred by limitation, as the invoices were raised in 2010 and the application was filed in 2019. The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor had approached the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to an order from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which directed the transfer of winding up proceedings to the NCLT, Hyderabad. The Tribunal held that the series of events, being continuous in nature, and the approach of the Operational Creditor to the Adjudicating Authority by virtue of the High Court's order, covered the plea of limitation. Therefore, the application was deemed to be within the limitation period.

3. Proper authorization for filing the application:

The Corporate Debtor contended that the application was filed without proper authorization, as the resolution authorizing the CFO to file the petition before the NCLT, Chennai Bench, was not found in the company's resolution dated 28.03.2019. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue but focused on the pre-existing dispute and limitation aspects.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the claims made by the Operational Creditor. Given the evidence of disputes and the Supreme Court's guidance on the matter, the Tribunal was not inclined to admit the application. Consequently, CP (IB) No. 636/9/HDB/2019 was rejected with no order as to costs.

---