Appeal dismissed for lack of clear liability under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The appeal against the dismissal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was dismissed. The Adjudicating Authority found the liability in question to be contentious and disputed, not a clear liability suitable for resolution under the Code. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation before deciding on liabilities and upheld the dismissal of the petition due to the pre-existence of a dispute and the appellant's pursuit of payments. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Appeal against dismissal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Appellant, Go Airlines (India) Limited, against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the petition for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Sovika Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority found the liability in question to be contentious and disputed, not a clean and clear liability, leading to the dismissal of the petition under Section 9 of the Code. The Code is not meant for resolving contentious disputes but for restructuring finances of debt-ridden debtors. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the need for thorough investigation and examination of evidence before deciding on liabilities.

2. The Appellant, a passenger airline operator, had a Cargo Agreement with the Respondent, specifying various payment obligations. Disputes arose regarding payments and cargo space availability, leading to strained relations between the parties. The Respondent raised issues of loss of revenue, unlawful loading of cargo, and non-compliance with the agreement terms by the Appellant. The Respondent highlighted operational issues faced, resulting in financial losses and disputes over debit notes.

3. Despite attempts to settle outstanding amounts, termination notices were issued by the Appellant due to non-clearance of dues. A Demand Notice was served for unpaid operational debt, and the Respondent responded by raising concerns about cargo space availability, loss of revenue, and disputes over commercial terms. The Respondent emphasized the existence of a genuine and serious dispute, alleging coercion by the Appellant to avoid liabilities.

4. The Adjudicating Authority noted the financial condition of the Corporate Debtor, indicating a previous initiation of CIRP and subsequent settlement with creditors. The Authority highlighted the absence of the Appellant's claim in the settled list of creditors and the encashment of a bank guarantee towards dues. The Authority concluded that the Appellant's pursuit of payments did not align with the purpose of the Code and emphasized the Supreme Court's stance that IBC should not substitute a recovery forum in cases of real disputes.

5. Considering the pre-existence of a dispute and the Appellant's pursuit of payments, the Adjudicating Authority upheld the dismissal of the petition. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, with no order as to costs, and any pending applications or interim orders were disposed of accordingly.

---