Application for Corporate Insolvency Rejected Due to Genuine Dispute

The Tribunal rejected the application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor due to the genuine dispute regarding liability for demurrage and detention charges. The application was found to be in violation of the statutory demand notice requirements and was therefore not admitted. The Tribunal instructed communication of the order to the parties and updating of the Master Data with the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of operational debt.
2. Pre-existing dispute.
3. Jurisdiction and limitation.
4. Liability for demurrage and detention charges.
5. Compliance with statutory demand notice requirements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of Operational Debt:
The applicant, a private limited company, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 5,58,81,454.73 as due and payable. The corporate debtor argued that the claim for demurrage and detention charges does not fall under the definition of operational debt as per Section 5(21) of the IBC, 2016.

2. Pre-existing Dispute:
The corporate debtor contended that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the liability for demurrage and detention charges. The debtor had communicated via email on 08.09.2020 disputing the charges. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence of a pre-existing dispute, supported by the Supreme Court judgment in "Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited," which mandates the rejection of an application if a genuine dispute exists.

3. Jurisdiction and Limitation:
The registered office of the corporate debtor is located in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain the application. The date of default ranged from 14.11.2019 to 28.11.2019, and the application was filed on 12.02.2021, making it within the limitation period and not barred by law.

4. Liability for Demurrage and Detention Charges:
The applicant argued that the corporate debtor had failed to clear the products from the container freight stations, resulting in demurrage and detention charges. The corporate debtor countered that the applicant had instructed the sale of the shipments to a third party, Hero Multi-Pap Private Limited (Hero MPPL), and that all payments were made either by the corporate debtor or Hero MPPL. The Tribunal noted that the primary issue was the liability for demurrage and detention charges, not the principal amount.

5. Compliance with Statutory Demand Notice Requirements:
The applicant issued a statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016, on 12.11.2020. The corporate debtor replied, raising disputes regarding the charges. The Tribunal observed that the existence of a dispute prior to the issuance of the statutory demand notice was evident, and thus the application could not be admitted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the application could not be admitted due to the existence of a genuine dispute regarding the liability for demurrage and detention charges. The application was rejected and disposed of, with instructions to communicate the order to the applicant and corporate debtor and update the Master Data with the ROC.

---