Tribunal affirms admission of application under IBC Section 9, dismissing appeal challenging debt and default findings.

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the application under Section 9 of the IBC, finding the debt and default established, and the application timely filed. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's arguments of pre-existing disputes and coercion, concluding that they lacked evidentiary support. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the admission of the application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application filed by the first Respondent under Section 9 of the IBC is maintainable.
2. Whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
3. Whether the application is barred by limitation.
4. Validity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the claim of coercion.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application under Section 9 of the IBC:
The Appellant argued that the application filed by the first Respondent was erroneous in law and on facts. The Respondent's claim was based on an oral purchase order and invoices for mild steel billets supplied to the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant contended that the claims were time-barred and there was a pre-existing dispute. However, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the application, stating that the Corporate Debtor executed an MoU and issued cheques which were dishonored. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's argument that the application was not maintainable.

2. Pre-existing Dispute:
The Appellant claimed that there were pre-existing disputes, evidenced by pending civil suits and the Respondent's failure to take back inferior quality material. The Respondent denied these allegations, asserting that the disputes were raised only after the demand notice was issued. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of coercion regarding the MoU and that the disputes raised were not genuine but mere bluster to avoid repayment. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's finding that there was no pre-existing dispute.

3. Limitation:
The Appellant argued that the Respondent failed to file the application within 60 days from the date of the notification (07.12.2016) as required. However, the Tribunal noted that the notification was amended on 29.06.2017, extending the deadline to 15.07.2017. The Respondent filed the application in May 2019, which was within the three-year limitation period from the date of default (04.04.2016). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the application was not barred by limitation.

4. Validity of the MoU and Coercion Claim:
The Appellant contended that the MoU dated 13.02.2016 and the blank cheques were obtained under coercion. The Tribunal examined the MoU and found no evidence of coercion. The MoU was signed by both parties, and there was no legal challenge to its validity. The Tribunal also noted that the Appellant failed to adhere to the MoU and the cheques issued were dishonored. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's finding that the MoU was valid and there was no coercion.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the debt and default were established, and the application was filed within the limitation period. The Appellant's claims of pre-existing disputes and coercion were not supported by evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's order to admit the application under Section 9 of the IBC.

---