Application for Corporate Insolvency Rejected Due to Invoice Disputes and Debt Uncertainty

The tribunal dismissed the application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to unresolved disputes over the authenticity of invoices and the inability to conclusively establish the debt. The tribunal highlighted its role as not being the appropriate forum to determine invoice veracity and advised the Operational Creditor to pursue other legal avenues for debt recovery.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Alleged default in payment by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Dispute over the existence and authenticity of invoices.
4. Allegation of misuse of IBC proceedings for debt recovery.
5. Pre-existing dispute and its relevance under IBC.
6. Verification of debt and authenticity of invoices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of IBC, 2016:
The application was filed by the Operational Creditor seeking to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for an alleged default in clearing a debt of Rs. 5,69,986 and interest of Rs. 3,76,191, totaling Rs. 9,46,177. The Operational Creditor supplied PVC pipes and other materials to the Corporate Debtor, who partially paid for these supplies, leaving an outstanding amount.

2. Alleged Default in Payment by Corporate Debtor:
The Operational Creditor claimed that despite regular supplies and timely invoicing, the Corporate Debtor made only partial payments and failed to clear the outstanding amount. The last payment was made on 04.07.2017, and subsequent requests for payment were acknowledged but not fulfilled by the Corporate Debtor.

3. Dispute Over the Existence and Authenticity of Invoices:
The Corporate Debtor disputed the invoices, claiming they were forged and that the debt was non-existent. They argued that no agreement for interest on delayed payments existed and that the amount due was only Rs. 210. The Operational Creditor countered this by alleging that the Corporate Debtor had fabricated their ledger accounts to mislead the tribunal and that the invoices were genuine and acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor.

4. Allegation of Misuse of IBC Proceedings for Debt Recovery:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the application under IBC was an attempt to arm-twist them into paying a non-existent debt, suggesting that the Operational Creditor should have opted for a summary suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if they were confident about the debt. They emphasized that IBC proceedings are meant for insolvency resolution, not debt recovery.

5. Pre-existing Dispute and Its Relevance Under IBC:
The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in "Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited," which clarified that for a dispute to qualify as pre-existing, it must be raised before the issuance of notice under Section 8 of IBC. The Corporate Debtor failed to produce any prior communication establishing a pre-existing dispute before the notice was issued, leading the tribunal to conclude that no pre-existing dispute existed.

6. Verification of Debt and Authenticity of Invoices:
The tribunal noted that both parties presented conflicting ledger accounts and that the authenticity of the invoices was in question. The Corporate Debtor did not issue a balance confirmation certificate or acknowledge the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor. Given the disputed authenticity of the invoices, the tribunal stated that it could not ascertain the debt's validity and suggested that the Operational Creditor explore other legal remedies.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the application for initiating CIRP under Section 9 of IBC, 2016, due to the unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the invoices and the inability to establish the debt conclusively. The tribunal emphasized that it is not the appropriate forum to determine the veracity of the invoices and advised the Operational Creditor to seek other legal avenues.

---