Dismissal of Insolvency Application Due to Pre-Existing Dispute: Real vs. Spurious Dispute Requirement

The application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was dismissed by the Tribunal as it found that a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties before the issuance of the demand notice under section 8 of the Code. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a real dispute, not a spurious one, at this stage, following the Supreme Court precedent in "Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited." The decision required communication of the order to both parties, forwarding a copy to IBBI for records, and sending another copy to ROC for updating the Master Data, with ROC mandated to provide a compliance report to the Registrar, NCLT.

---

---

Issues:
Application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency process against a private limited company - Dispute regarding payment between the parties - Existence of pre-existing dispute prior to the issuance of the demand notice under section 8 of the Code.

Analysis:
The Applicant, a limited company, filed an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor, a private limited company, for non-payment of dues amounting to Rs. 91,82,988 for steel supplies made for a project. The Applicant maintained a running account of the transactions and issued a legal notice when payment was not received. The Corporate Debtor raised a dispute regarding the debt, alleging delays in supply causing losses and referring to income tax demands on the Applicant. The Applicant denied these claims in its rejoinder.

The Tribunal examined the documents and found that a dispute existed between the parties prior to the issuance of the demand notice under section 8 of the Code. Citing the Supreme Court case of "Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited," the Tribunal emphasized that the existence of a real dispute, not a spurious one, is crucial at this stage. The Court clarified that the merits of the dispute are not to be examined, but only whether a plausible contention necessitating further investigation exists.

Based on the facts presented, the Tribunal concluded that a pre-existing dispute was raised by the Corporate Debtor before the notice under section 8 of the Code was served. Therefore, the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was dismissed. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to both parties, forward a copy to IBBI for records, and send another copy to ROC for updating the Master Data, with ROC required to provide a compliance report to the Registrar, NCLT.

---