Petition to Initiate Insolvency Process Dismissed due to Time-Barred Claim

The Tribunal dismissed the petition seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Essel Utilities Distribution Company Limited, as the claim by Bsmart Tech Private Limited was found to be time-barred. The invoices in question dated back to 2015-2016, and the petition filed in 2019 exceeded the limitation period. Additionally, a pre-existing dispute was identified between the parties regarding discrepancies in SMS count and rates, as evidenced by an email from the Corporate Debtor in 2016. The petition was dismissed with no costs, and the order was communicated to both parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim made by the Petitioner is time-barred.
2. Whether there was any pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the claim made by the Petitioner is time-barred:

The Petitioner, Bsmart Tech Private Limited, filed a Company Petition under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Essel Utilities Distribution Company Limited, claiming an outstanding amount of Rs. 17,54,240.10. The invoices in question pertain to the period from July 2015 to June 2016. The last payment made by the Corporate Debtor was on December 1, 2015. The Petitioner issued a demand notice under section 8 of IBC on December 5, 2018, which was delivered to the Corporate Debtor on December 12, 2018. Despite this, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the outstanding dues.

The Corporate Debtor argued that the claim is barred by limitation as the invoices pertain to the year 2015-2016, and the petition was filed belatedly on May 7, 2019. The Tribunal found that the last payment was made on December 1, 2015, and the email raising a dispute was dated February 4, 2016. Even if this email extended the limitation period, it would have ended by February 2019. Since the petition was filed on May 7, 2019, it was beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the claim is time-barred.

2. Whether there was any pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor:

The Petitioner provided Bulk SMS services to the Corporate Debtor and raised invoices, which the Corporate Debtor failed to pay after December 2015. The Corporate Debtor, in its reply, argued that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties, particularly regarding the SMS count and the rate per SMS. The Corporate Debtor pointed out discrepancies in the SMS count mentioned in the invoices and the rate charged per SMS, which was higher than the agreed rate. The Corporate Debtor also mentioned that the invoices were not signed and certified as required by the work order.

The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor, in its email dated February 4, 2016, acknowledged receipt of the invoices but raised issues regarding the SMS count. The Tribunal found that this email indicated a plausible dispute between the parties regarding the SMS count. Citing the judgment in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited, the Tribunal held that the contents of the email amounted to a pre-existing dispute.

Findings:

The Tribunal concluded that:
1. The claim made by the Petitioner is time-barred as the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation.
2. There was a pre-existing dispute between the parties, as indicated by the email dated February 4, 2016.

Order:

The petition was dismissed with no costs. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to both parties immediately.

---