Operational creditor's petition dismissed for lack of proof under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Section 9(2)(e).

The court dismissed the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, citing the operational creditor's failure to provide adequate proof as required by Section 9(2)(e). The judgment emphasized deficiencies in documentation, lack of substantive logic, and misuse of the Code for ad-hoc recovery. The order stressed compliance with formalities and directed communication to relevant parties, highlighting the importance of meeting the statutory requirements for initiating insolvency proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by an operational creditor against a corporate debtor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Analysis:
1. Service of Demand Notice:
The demand notice was duly issued on 07.01.2019 and received by the corporate debtor, as evidenced by the reply on 24.01.19, although not accepting the full claimed amount. The notice included invoices, establishing service of demand notice.

2. Pre-existing Dispute:
The corporate debtor raised discrepancies in the claimed amount post receiving the notice. However, the lack of evidence of a pre-existing dispute and delayed dispute raised by the corporate debtor do not meet the criteria of a genuine dispute as per legal standards.

3. Operational Debt Due and Payable:
The operational creditor failed to substantiate the outstanding debt adequately. The ledger account provided did not align invoices with payments, indicating lack of clarity. Moreover, interest was claimed without a contractual basis, and the petition lacked necessary documentation and logical substantiation.

The judgment rejected the petition under Section 9 of the Code due to the operational creditor's failure to provide sufficient proof as required by Section 9(2)(e). The decision highlighted the inadequacies in documentation, lack of substantive logic, and misuse of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as an ad-hoc recovery mechanism. The order directed communication to all relevant parties and emphasized compliance with formalities for issuing a certified copy upon request.

---