Application under Section 9 of IBC Dismissed Due to Pre-existing Disputes and Non-compliance

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, due to pre-existing disputes between the parties regarding the agreement terms, payment issues, and engagement of employees. The Tribunal found that the application was non-maintainable as the Corporate Debtor had raised disputes before the demand notice was received, and there was non-compliance with procedural requirements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016.
2. Existence of an operational debt and default by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Pre-existing disputes between the parties.
4. Validity and enforceability of the agreement between the parties.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the application was not maintainable due to the absence of personal debt and pre-existing disputes. The Tribunal examined whether the application met the criteria under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, which includes the requirement of a demand notice and the absence of disputes. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had raised disputes prior to the receipt of the demand notice, making the application non-maintainable.

2. Existence of an operational debt and default by the Corporate Debtor:
The Operational Creditor claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 88,37,700/- for services rendered. The Corporate Debtor contended that there was no default and that they had made excess payments. The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor had raised issues regarding the payment and engagement of employees, and the Operational Creditor had not satisfactorily addressed these issues. Therefore, the Tribunal found that there was no clear evidence of default by the Corporate Debtor.

3. Pre-existing disputes between the parties:
The Corporate Debtor had sent legal notices on 14th March 2018 and 25th April 2018, raising disputes about the services provided and payments made. The Tribunal found that these notices were sent before the demand notice and raised substantial issues, including the quality of services and excess payments. The Tribunal concluded that there was a pre-existing dispute, which is a ground for rejecting the application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016.

4. Validity and enforceability of the agreement between the parties:
The Tribunal examined the agreement proposed by the Operational Creditor and found that it was never signed by both parties. The draft agreement sent by the Corporate Debtor was modified by the Operational Creditor, but the modifications were not accepted. The Tribunal held that there was no valid and enforceable agreement between the parties, which further supported the existence of disputes.

5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016:
The Tribunal reviewed the compliance with procedural requirements, including the delivery of a demand notice and the filing of an affidavit under Section 9(3)(b). The Tribunal found that the affidavit filed by the Operational Creditor was not accurate, as it did not acknowledge the pre-existing disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor. This non-compliance with procedural requirements contributed to the rejection of the application.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement, payment of salaries, and engagement of employees. The Tribunal held that the application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, was not maintainable due to these disputes and procedural non-compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

---