Tribunal dismisses CIRP application due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal rejected the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiation under Section 9 of IBC 2016. It found the Operational Creditor's evidence insufficient to establish the debt's validity, noting lack of acknowledgment on invoices, absence of signed licenses, and unverified ledger accounts. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of a tripartite agreement, indicating a lack of substantial proof of engagement. Consequently, the CIRP application was dismissed without costs, allowing the Operational Creditor to pursue the matter in other forums.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of IBC 2016 based on alleged default by Corporate Debtor in payment for licenses provided by Operational Creditor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Default and Transaction Details:
The Operational Creditor, engaged in export-import business, provided various licenses to the Corporate Debtor for exporting items. An outstanding balance of Rs. 38,28,521 was claimed by the Operational Creditor, supported by invoices and ledger accounts showing non-payment by the Corporate Debtor. A demand notice was sent under Section 8 of the code, demanding payment.

2. Corporate Debtor's Response:
The Corporate Debtor contended that partial payments were made through banking channels and in cash, citing reasons such as settling accounts with dealers. They claimed to have paid a significant amount through bank channels and in cash. The Corporate Debtor also mentioned a previous transaction involving product quality issues and delayed payments.

3. Tribunal's Evaluation:
The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor failed to provide convincing evidence to establish the debt's validity. The invoices and licenses provided were not acknowledged or signed by the Corporate Debtor. The ledger presented was not verified by the Corporate Debtor. The absence of a tripartite agreement among the parties and licensing authorities was highlighted, indicating a lack of substantial proof of engagement between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor.

4. Decision and Conclusion:
Based on the evaluation, the Tribunal concluded that the Operational Creditor did not sufficiently prove the debt's legitimacy as per Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the application for CIRP initiation was rejected without imposing any costs. The Tribunal clarified that its decision should not prejudice the Operational Creditor's rights to pursue the matter in other forums.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the transactional background, legal arguments presented, tribunal's assessment, and the ultimate decision regarding the application for CIRP initiation based on the alleged default by the Corporate Debtor in payment for licenses provided by the Operational Creditor.

---