Appeal Dismissed: Lack of Proof of Delivery Leads to Rejection of Insolvency Application

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the NCLT's decision to reject a section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to discrepancies in the claim of the Operational Creditor and objections by the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor failed to provide sufficient evidence of delivery of goods for disputed invoices, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of unimpeachable proof of delivery to support claims under the IBC and cited that the code cannot be invoked in the presence of a real dispute.

---

---

Issues:
Discrepancies in claim of Operational Creditor, objections by Corporate Debtor, non-payment of outstanding amount, disputed invoices, non-delivery of goods, disputed rates, forged invoice, lack of proof of delivery.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancies in Claim and Objections:
The appeal was filed under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging the judgment of the NCLT, Kolkata Bench, which dismissed the section 9 application due to discrepancies in the claim of the Operational Creditor and objections raised by the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor alleged non-payment of the outstanding amount by the Corporate Debtor.

2. Disputed Invoices and Non-Delivery of Goods:
The main issues revolved around three disputed invoices and the delivery of goods. The Corporate Debtor disputed the delivery of goods related to the invoices and raised concerns about the rates charged by the Operational Creditor. The disputes were raised in response to a demand notice, with the Corporate Debtor denying receipt of goods for certain invoices.

3. Arguments and Counterarguments:
The Operational Creditor argued that discrepancies in rates were due to different invoices issued at different stages, with the correct rate mentioned in the final invoice. The Corporate Debtor disputed the delivery of goods for one invoice and requested proof of delivery, which the Operational Creditor failed to provide convincingly.

4. Lack of Proof of Delivery:
Regarding one invoice, the Corporate Debtor's confirmation email was not considered proof of delivery, and the quarterly VAT returns and ledger accounts submitted were deemed insufficient to establish the delivery of goods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for unimpeachable proof of delivery to support the claim under section 9 of the IBC.

5. Decision and Legal Precedent:
The Tribunal found that the Operational Creditor failed to provide convincing evidence of the delivery of goods for the disputed invoices. Citing a legal precedent, the Tribunal highlighted that the IBC cannot be invoked in the presence of a real dispute. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to reject the section 9 application.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the application lacked merit and upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority. No costs were awarded in the judgment. The detailed analysis focused on the lack of conclusive proof of delivery of goods, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the existence of legitimate disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor.

---