2022 (2) TMI 833 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal dismisses application under Insolvency Code due to payment, unrelated dispute, and lack of valid grounds.

Mistcold Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ambience Airtech Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the Corporate Debtor had made payments, the ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the Affidavit and NEFT Advices submitted that the CD has paid ₹ 5,48,977.00 including the last payment of ₹ 3.00 lacs made on 08/07/2021. The leftover claimed amount of invoice of ₹ 33,282.00, not related to them, is also less than ₹ 1.00 lac. The OC has not objected to the above submission of the CD - It is also observed that the OC has made all attempts to continue the cases despite the receipt of the claimed amount. The action of the OC is not appreciated. Application dismissed. Issues:Application under section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process based on unpaid operational debt.Detailed Analysis:1. The Applicant, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, a Real Estate Developer, for non-payment of outstanding invoices amounting to Rs. 6,00,620.00. The Applicant supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor based on a Purchase Order and Post Dated Cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor, who subsequently failed to make the remaining payment despite follow-ups and a Demand Notice issued by the Applicant.2. During the hearing, the Corporate Debtor claimed to have paid Rs. 5,48,977.00 to the Applicant, as evidenced by NEFT payments made on different dates. The Corporate Debtor disputed an invoice amount of Rs. 33,280.00, stating it was not related to them and that no dues remained pending to be paid to the Applicant. The Corporate Debtor submitted an affidavit and NEFT Advices to support their claim, while the Applicant did not provide any counter-affidavit.3. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence presented, found that the Corporate Debtor had indeed paid Rs. 5,48,977.00, including a recent payment of Rs. 3,00,000.00. The disputed invoice amount was also found to be unrelated to the Corporate Debtor and less than Rs. 1,00,000. The Tribunal noted the lack of objection from the Applicant regarding the Corporate Debtor's submissions.4. The Tribunal criticized the Applicant for persisting with the case despite the Corporate Debtor's payments and the lack of objection to the disputed amount. The Tribunal warned against misuse of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, stating that penalties would be imposed on those attempting to abuse the system. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, as it found no valid grounds for further proceedings, emphasizing that nothing survived for consideration.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to the Corporate Debtor's payments, the lack of objection from the Applicant, and the absence of valid grounds to proceed with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.