Tribunal Denies Insolvency Petition Due to Genuine Dispute Over Building Floor Dues

The Tribunal rejected the petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of IBC 2016, citing the existence of a genuine dispute between the parties regarding the outstanding dues for work done on the building's floors. The respondent's objections, including lack of specific invoice demand notice and disputes over the claim, were considered valid. The Tribunal emphasized the need for notice of dispute as per Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code, leading to the dismissal of the petition without prejudice to the petitioner's rights in other forums.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of IBC 2016 due to alleged default in settling outstanding amount for goods supplied.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an operational creditor, filed a petition seeking CIRP against the respondent company for defaulting on payments totaling to a significant amount for work done on 2nd and 5th floors of a building.

2. The petitioner claimed that the work on both floors was satisfactorily completed, supported by completion certificates counter-signed by the appointed Architect. Despite demand notices and replies exchanged, the respondent failed to settle the outstanding dues, leading to the petition.

3. The respondent raised objections, including non-compliance with serving a demand notice for a specific invoice, different causes of action for the work orders, disputes regarding the alleged claim, and lack of supporting documentation for the invoices.

4. The respondent also disputed the authenticity of completion certificates, alleging fabrication and lack of proper documentation supporting the invoices. They claimed that the petitioner had received substantial payments, not reflected in the accounts.

5. The petitioner's rejoinder emphasized the lack of dispute notices from the respondent prior to the demand notice issuance, highlighting the need for adjudication on the disputed claims and the respondent's failure to admit the operational debt.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including emails indicating disputes over rates and bills, and concluded that a genuine dispute existed before the demand notice. As per the Supreme Court's guidance, the Tribunal emphasized the need to reject spurious disputes and ruled in favor of the respondent due to the existence of a genuine dispute.

7. Citing Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code, the Tribunal rejected the petition, emphasizing the need for a notice of dispute for such applications. The order clarified that the dismissal did not prejudice the petitioner's rights to seek remedies in other forums.

8. The detailed analysis considered the contentions, evidence, and legal requirements, ultimately leading to the rejection of the petition due to the existence of a genuine dispute between the parties.

---