Petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process dismissed due to pre-existing disputes and debt discrepancies.

The Tribunal dismissed the petition for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The decision was based on the pre-existing disputes between the parties, discrepancies in the debt amount claimed, and evidence showing that most bookings were not made through the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal found that no brokerage was payable for units booked through other sources, leading to the dismissal of the petition due to lack of clarity and the presence of a genuine dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor.

---

---

Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Dispute regarding maintainability of the petition; Existence of debt dispute between the parties; Discrepancies in the amount of debt claimed by the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor for an outstanding amount of Rs. 17,35,762 as marketing fee/brokerage under an agreement. The Operational Creditor claimed that the debt was due since 30.09.2016, and despite reminders, the payment was not made by the Corporate Debtor. However, the Corporate Debtor raised concerns about the maintainability of the petition due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of furnishing an affidavit as per Section 9(3)(b) of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor argued that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor.

The Corporate Debtor contended that the Operational Creditor failed to achieve the agreed booking target as per the agreement and that the bookings claimed by the Operational Creditor were not made through their involvement. The Corporate Debtor provided evidence, including call recordings and an Excel sheet, to support their claim that most customers booked units through sources other than the Operational Creditor. Additionally, discrepancies were highlighted in the amount of debt claimed by the Operational Creditor, indicating lack of clarity and potential frivolous claims.

The Tribunal analyzed the agreement between the parties and noted that as per the agreement's clauses, the Operational Creditor was entitled to brokerage only on units booked through their involvement, with conditions for cancellation and payment percentages by customers. Considering the pre-existing disputes, lack of clarity in the debt amount, and evidence provided by the Corporate Debtor, the Tribunal found that no brokerage was payable for units booked through sources other than the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, stating that the Corporate Debtor had raised a dispute before the filing of the petition, and no amount was payable to the Operational Creditor based on the circumstances presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, emphasizing the pre-existing disputes, lack of clarity in the debt amount claimed, and the evidence provided by the Corporate Debtor regarding the bookings made through sources other than the Operational Creditor. The decision was communicated to both parties by the Registry.

---