Tribunal dismisses Company Petition due to pre-existing dispute over goods quality. No merit found in perjury allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed both CP (IB) No. 373/KB/2018 and I.A. (IB) No. 1078/KB/2019. It held that a pre-existing dispute over the quality of goods supplied justified rejecting the Company Petition. The Tribunal found no merit in the allegations of perjury against the Operational Creditor and granted the Corporate Debtor liberty to pursue other legal remedies available under the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Pre-existing dispute regarding the debt.
2. Payments made to the Operational Creditor.
3. Allegations of perjury by the Corporate Debtor against the Operational Creditor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Pre-existing dispute regarding the debt:
The Corporate Debtor argued that there was a pre-existing dispute about the quality of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor provided several emails and Goods Received Notes (GRNs) indicating discrepancies in the quality of Soya DOC supplied. The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor had communicated quality issues through emails dated 11 February 2015 and 28 February 2015, and had made payments after deducting amounts for transportation and quality issues. The Tribunal observed that the Operational Creditor had taken inconsistent stands regarding the emails sent to "Kailash," accepting them when beneficial and rejecting them otherwise. The Tribunal concluded that the existence of pre-existing disputes was evident, leading to the rejection of the Company Petition.

2. Payments made to the Operational Creditor:
The Corporate Debtor claimed that it had paid the Operational Creditor Rs. 3,09,33,015/- after deducting amounts for transportation charges and quality issues. The Operational Creditor, however, claimed an unpaid amount of Rs. 46,68,629.99/-. The Tribunal found that the last payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made on 27.07.2015, as evidenced by the bank statement. The Tribunal accepted the Corporate Debtor's contention that payments were made after necessary deductions, supported by emails and payment records.

3. Allegations of perjury by the Corporate Debtor against the Operational Creditor:
The Corporate Debtor filed I.A. (IB) No. 1078/KB/2019, seeking to prosecute the Directors of the Operational Creditor for perjury under sections 193 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Corporate Debtor alleged that the Operational Creditor made false statements and submitted false evidence in the Company Petition. The Tribunal examined the allegations and found that the Corporate Debtor did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claims of perjury. The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor had denied the existence of an agreement and laboratory test clause, which was not mentioned in the emails. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for perjury.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both CP (IB) No. 373/KB/2018 and I.A. (IB) No. 1078/KB/2019. The Tribunal held that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied, which justified the rejection of the Company Petition. Additionally, the Tribunal found no merit in the allegations of perjury against the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal granted liberty to the applicant (Corporate Debtor) to pursue other legal remedies available under the law.

---