Operational debt and pre-existing dispute analysis shaped maintainability of section 9 insolvency claims over lease-related charges.

Lease-related charges for electricity, diesel, sewerage and water were treated as operational debt where the record showed undisputed supply and reimbursement of services beyond bare rent. On that basis, the majority held that the creditor could maintain a section 9 IBC application, and that a live dispute over the lease arrangement did not defeat admission because the admitted service-related dues were sufficient. The dissent took the view that the claim was essentially for disputed lease rent, that the service charges were not pleaded in the Form 5 claim in a way that removed the dispute, and that a pre-existing dispute required rejection of the insolvency petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether lease-related charges, including electricity, diesel, sewer and water charges, constituted operational debt so as to sustain an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether the alleged dispute between the parties barred admission of the insolvency application.

Analysis: The majority treated the claim as not confined to bare rent. It accepted that the record disclosed supply and reimbursement of services such as power backup, electricity, water and allied facility charges, which were undisputed and exceeded the statutory threshold. On that basis, the creditor was treated as an operational creditor in relation to those services, and the case was distinguished from authorities dealing only with rent or licence fee. The majority also noted that the material on record showed a live dispute regarding the lease arrangement, but found that the admitted service-related dues were sufficient to support maintainability under section 9.

Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the admission of the section 9 application was sustained.

Dissenting Opinion: The Technical Member held that the application was founded essentially on disputed lease rent, that the pleaded service charges were not part of the Form 5 claim in a manner sufficient to displace the dispute, and that there was a pre-existing dispute requiring rejection of the section 9 application. The dissent would have set aside admission and dismissed the insolvency petition.

---