Tribunal dismisses insolvency application citing pre-existing dispute on refundability, not maintainable under IBC Section 9.

The Tribunal concluded that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the refundability of the advance, disqualifying the application under Section 9 of the IBC. As the Corporate Debtor had raised the dispute before the delivery of the demand notice, the application was deemed not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing its limited role in verifying the existence of a dispute and not adjudicating on the contractual terms' merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 1 crore advanced by the Applicant was non-refundable.
2. Whether the Corporate Debtor was justified in forfeiting the amount.
3. Whether the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to decide on the forfeiture of the amount.
4. Whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties prior to the issuance of the demand notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-Refundability of Rs. 1 Crore Advance:
The Applicant, M/s. Gati Limited, contended that the Corporate Debtor, Balaji Operation and Maintenance Service Pvt. Ltd., failed to deliver the goods as per the purchase order and sought a refund of Rs. 1 crore paid as an advance. The Corporate Debtor argued that the amount was non-refundable, as explicitly stated in the proposal dated 28.02.2019, which the Applicant had accepted without objections. The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner admitted the non-refundable nature of the advance in the petition.

2. Justification for Forfeiture:
The Corporate Debtor asserted that the advance was rightly forfeited due to the Applicant's failure to hand over the site and abrupt termination of the work order. The Tribunal referred to the work order and the terms of the agreement, which included the forfeiture clause. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had subcontracted the work and incurred expenses, further justifying the forfeiture. The Tribunal referred to the Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing that the existence of a dispute removes the matter from the scope of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

3. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority:
The Tribunal examined whether it had the jurisdiction to decide on the forfeiture issue under Section 9 of the IBC. It concluded that the scope of Section 9 is limited to determining the existence of an operational debt and whether there is a pre-existing dispute. The Tribunal referred to Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC, which mandate the rejection of an application if a notice of dispute is received. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not competent to adjudicate on the merits of the forfeiture clause, which should be decided by a court with proper jurisdiction.

4. Pre-Existing Dispute:
The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had raised a dispute regarding the refundability of the advance before the issuance of the demand notice. The Corporate Debtor's letter dated 04.07.2019 and email dated 06.03.2019, which stated the non-refundable nature of the advance, were considered sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute. The Tribunal reiterated the Supreme Court's stance in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., which held that the existence of a pre-existing dispute disqualifies the application under Section 9 of the IBC.

Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, the Tribunal concluded that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties and that the Corporate Debtor had raised the dispute before the delivery of the demand notice. Consequently, the application under Section 9 of the IBC was deemed not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority's role is limited to verifying the existence of a dispute and not adjudicating on the merits of the contractual terms. The office was directed to send a free copy of the order to both parties.

---