Operational debt and pre-existing dispute under the IBC: supply contracts fall within operational debt, and later arbitration cannot defeat admission.

Operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code covers claims arising from the supply of goods or services, while financial debt involves disbursal against time value of money. On the stated facts, the sourcing, procurement and supply arrangement for marine products was treated as an operational transaction on the basis of invoices, delivery records and compromise material. The note also explains that a pre-existing dispute must exist before receipt of the demand notice to defeat a section 9 application; later arbitration proceedings or a later compromise cannot create such a dispute. Applying that test, the section 9 admission was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the debt claimed against the corporate debtor was an operational debt within the meaning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ii) Whether there was any pre-existing dispute so as to render the section 9 application not maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the debt claimed against the corporate debtor was an operational debt within the meaning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The definitions of debt, claim, operational debt, operational creditor, financial debt and default show that operational debt relates to a claim for provision of goods or services, while financial debt is disbursal against time value of money. On the contractual documents, invoices, delivery records and compromise material, the underlying arrangement was one for sourcing, procurement and supply of marine products, not a financing transaction. The nature of the transaction therefore fell within operational debt.

Conclusion: The debt was correctly treated as an operational debt, and this finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether there was any pre-existing dispute so as to render the section 9 application not maintainable.

Analysis: Under the Code, a dispute includes a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to the existence of the amount of debt, quality of goods or breach of warranty, and it must exist before receipt of the demand notice. The demand notice preceded the arbitration proceedings and the compromise settlement relied upon by the appellant. Those later events could not create a pre-existing dispute. Applying the settled test, no dispute shown to have existed before the demand notice was established.

Conclusion: No pre-existing dispute was proved, and the section 9 application was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency admission order was sustained because the claim was an operational debt and the objection based on pre-existing dispute failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 9 proceedings, a claim arising from supply contracts is operational debt, and only a dispute that existed before the demand notice can defeat admission; later arbitration or settlement events do not constitute a pre-existing dispute.

---