Dismissal of Appeal against Impugned Order under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal against the Impugned Order, which rejected the Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dismissal was based on the existence of pre-existing disputes between the parties regarding services rendered, leading to the rejection of the Application under Section 9. The Tribunal found that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor prior to the demand notice justified the rejection, and the Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against Impugned Order dated 29th May, 2020 rejecting Application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
- Claim of debt outstanding of &8377; 88,37,700/- and dismissal of application under Section 7 of IBC.
- Existence of pre-existing disputes between the parties regarding services rendered.

Analysis:
1. Impugned Order Rejection:
The Appellant filed an Appeal against the Impugned Order rejecting the Application under Section 9 of IBC. The Appellant argued that services were provided to the Corporate Debtor, but payments were irregular, leading to discontinuation of services due to non-payment of pending bills and breach of trust. The Appellant claimed that despite efforts to resolve issues and sending demand notices, the Respondent raised irrelevant issues and failed to make payments. The Adjudicating Authority considered the reply to the demand notice and found pre-existing disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor, leading to the rejection of the Application under Section 9.

2. Debt Outstanding and Dismissal of Application:
The Appellant claimed a debt outstanding of &8377; 88,37,700/- and argued that the Application under Section 7 of IBC was wrongly dismissed. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant presented various documents, emails, and notices to demonstrate that the disputes raised by the Respondent were false and irrelevant. However, the Adjudicating Authority referred to the Judgment in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. and observed the existence of disputes prior to the demand notice, leading to the dismissal of the Application.

3. Pre-Existing Disputes:
The record revealed pre-existing disputes between the parties regarding services rendered. The CEO of the Corporate Debtor sent an email highlighting damages caused by the Appellant's actions, threatening legal involvement. Additionally, notices sent by the Corporate Debtor's Advocate raised issues of incomplete projects and non-functional work by the Operational Creditor. These disputes indicated a lack of agreement and unresolved issues between the parties, justifying the rejection of the Application under Section 9 of IBC.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Appeal and dismissed it, citing the existence of pre-existing disputes that could not be resolved summarily under Section 9 of IBC. The decision was based on the acknowledgment of disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor prior to the demand notice, leading to the rejection of the Application.

---