Pre-existing disputes led to rejection of insolvency application

The Tribunal rejected the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the Corporate Debtor successfully demonstrated the existence of pre-existing disputes with evidence predating the Demand Notice. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that a genuine contention, not a frivolous dispute, is sufficient to dismiss an application under Section 9. Consequently, the Corporate Debtor's claims were deemed valid, and the Operational Creditor was directed to seek alternative legal recourse. Subsequently, the related interim application seeking dismissal of the main application was also disposed of in line with the rejection of the primary petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
2. Existence of a pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor.
3. Validity and maintainability of the application under Section 9 of IBC.
4. Allegations of deficiency in service and breach of contract by the Operational Creditor.
5. Counterclaims and legal actions initiated by the Corporate Debtor.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016:
The Operational Creditor, a proprietorship firm, filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment of dues amounting to Rs. 78,87,525/- for construction-related works. The Operational Creditor claimed that despite multiple assurances and partial payments, the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the outstanding dues, leading to the issuance of a Demand Notice dated 25.09.2019.

2. Existence of a pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor argued that there were pre-existing disputes regarding the quality and completion of the work performed by the Operational Creditor. Multiple letters dated 9th and 11th July 2019 were cited, highlighting deficiencies and discrepancies in the work and billing by the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor claimed that these disputes were communicated to the Operational Creditor both orally and in writing before the issuance of the Demand Notice.

3. Validity and maintainability of the application under Section 9 of IBC:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the application was not maintainable due to the pre-existing disputes and alleged that the application was misconceived and baseless. The Corporate Debtor also highlighted that a Civil Suit (Money Suit No. 573/2019) and a criminal complaint were filed against the Operational Creditor on 27th September 2019, further indicating the existence of disputes.

4. Allegations of deficiency in service and breach of contract by the Operational Creditor:
The Corporate Debtor alleged that the Operational Creditor failed to perform the required civil works as per the terms of the work orders, leading to substantial financial losses. The Corporate Debtor claimed to have incurred expenses for rectifying the defective work and estimated further expenditures for completing the unfinished work. It was argued that the Operational Creditor was not entitled to any further payments due to these deficiencies and breaches.

5. Counterclaims and legal actions initiated by the Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor filed a Civil Suit seeking a declaration that no money was due to the Operational Creditor and claimed damages of Rs. 27,00,000/-. The Corporate Debtor also filed a criminal complaint against the Operational Creditor and another individual, which was registered as an FIR, and the police investigation was ongoing. These actions were presented as evidence of the pre-existing disputes.

Judgment:
The Tribunal examined the submissions and evidence from both parties. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that the existence of a plausible contention, not a spurious or frivolous dispute, is sufficient to reject an application under Section 9 of IBC. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor's claims of pre-existing disputes were supported by evidence, including the letters dated 9th and 11th July 2019, which were communicated before the Demand Notice.

The Tribunal concluded that the plea of pre-existing disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor had merit and was not a feeble legal argument. Consequently, the application under Section 9 of IBC was rejected. The Operational Creditor was advised to pursue other legal remedies available under the law.

Disposition of IA No. 449/KB/2020:
Since the main application under Section 9 of IBC was rejected, the related IA No. 449/KB/2020 seeking dismissal of the main application and stay of proceedings was also disposed of accordingly.

Order:
The application under Section 9 of IBC was rejected, and the Operational Creditor was advised to explore other legal remedies. Certified copies of the order were to be issued to all concerned parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

---