Dismissal of Section 9 IBC Petition: Pre-existing dispute, misuse of IBC, ongoing disputes

The Petition filed under section 9 of the IBC was dismissed by the Tribunal. The dismissal was based on the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties, unresolved issues regarding the quality of work and defects liability, misuse of the IBC for debt recovery rather than addressing financial distress, and evidence showing ongoing disputes despite certification of bills. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a genuine dispute to reject the Petition, citing relevant case law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Pre-existing dispute between the parties.
2. Payment and certification of bills.
3. Misuse of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
4. Quality of work and defects liability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Pre-existing Dispute:
The Corporate Debtor argued that a pre-existing dispute arose in June 2019, prior to the issuance of the statutory notice, making the Petition non-maintainable. The Tribunal found that the Petitioner had admitted to disputes regarding the defects, which remained unresolved at the time of the statutory notice and the filing of the Petition. The Tribunal cited *Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd.* (2018) to emphasize that the existence of a genuine dispute requires the rejection of the Petition. Thus, the Petition was dismissed on the grounds of a pre-existing dispute.

2. Payment and Certification of Bills:
The Operational Creditor raised nine bills, of which eight were paid. The ninth bill for Rs. 28,14,197/- and 50% retention amount of Rs. 5,39,368/- remained unpaid. The Corporate Debtor's Architect had certified the work, and TDS was deducted on the amounts. The Tribunal noted the certification process but highlighted the unresolved disputes regarding the quality of work, which impacted the payment. Despite the certification, the existence of disputes was sufficient to reject the Petition.

3. Misuse of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC):
The Corporate Debtor contended that the Operational Creditor was misusing the IBC to extort money, rather than addressing genuine financial distress. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the principle that the IBC should not be used as a tool for debt recovery but to assist entities in financial default. The misuse of the IBC was evident due to the unresolved disputes and the Petitioner’s attempt to leverage the fear of CIRP.

4. Quality of Work and Defects Liability:
The Corporate Debtor raised concerns about the quality of work and defects, which were to be addressed during the defect liability period. The Tribunal noted correspondence where the Petitioner acknowledged defects and agreed to rectify them. The defect liability period was from 1st May 2019 to 30th April 2020, and the disputes regarding the quality of work were ongoing. The Tribunal found that these issues required evidence and could not be resolved summarily, reinforcing the dismissal of the Petition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Petition was liable to be rejected due to the pre-existing dispute and the misuse of the IBC. The unresolved issues regarding the quality of work and the defect liability period further supported the rejection. The Petition filed by Mohite Infraprojects Private Limited under section 9 of the IBC was dismissed, as the Corporate Debtor successfully demonstrated the existence of a genuine dispute.

---