2022 (10) TMI 871 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Application for Corporate Insolvency Rejected due to Failure to Meet Debt Threshold

M/s Beetel Teletech Limited Versus Arcelia IT Services Private Limited

The Tribunal dismissed the application for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy ... Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Whereas the payments made on the earlier dates except the payment reflected at Serial no.1 are adjusted against the invoice no. RV1927813879, the part-payments dated 03.11.2021 and 08.11.2021 made by the respondents as reflected at serial. no. 8 and 9 are adjusted towards the interest outstanding of the invoice bearing No. RV2027804572. Hence, there are no consistency or pattern in the treatment accorded to the part-payments, while adjusting the same towards the outstanding dues. Had the amounts mentioned at Serial No. 8 and 9 been adjusted towards the invoice RV1927813879, the principal amount would be less than the minimum stipulated threshold of Rs 1 (one) Crore. The invoice claimed in Part IV of the present application is only RV1927813879 and the other invoices as referred in table (produced) are neither produced nor are the subject matter of the present petition - further investigation and scrutiny of facts is required that as to why the subsequent payments made on 08.11 2021 are adjusted against the invoice no. RV2027804572, whereas the previous payments made on 24.03.2021 and 25.03.2021 are adjusted towards the Invoice under reference i.e., RV1927813879. The Applicant has failed to establish beyond doubt the quantum of the unpaid operational debt above the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 (one) Crore subsisting - Application dismissed. Issues:1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Claim of operational debt by the Applicant.3. Objections raised by the Respondent regarding the operational debt claimed.4. Adjustment of part-payments towards the outstanding dues.5. Consideration of interest during the suspension period of IBC.6. Compliance with terms and conditions of the Agreement between the parties.Analysis:1. The Applicant, M/s. Beetel Teletech Limited, filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent, M/s. Arcelia IT Services Private Limited, due to non-payment of operational debt amounting to Rs. 1,15,11,486/-, including the principal and interest. 2. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent failed to make payments as per the agreed terms, leading to the accumulation of the operational debt. The Respondent, however, contested the claim by raising objections, including questioning the Applicant's status as an operational creditor and disputing the validity of the debt claimed.3. The Respondent argued that the Applicant did not fulfill the delivery terms specified in the Purchase Order, resulting in non-acceptance of goods, and highlighted clauses from the Agreement regarding payment conditions based on complete consignment delivery. Additionally, the Respondent contended that the arbitration clause in the Agreement rendered the application non-maintainable.4. During the proceedings, discrepancies arose regarding the adjustment of part-payments towards the outstanding dues. The Respondent claimed that certain payments were not appropriately considered, leading to a reduction in the total outstanding amount. The Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the treatment of part-payments, affecting the calculation of the principal debt.5. The Tribunal scrutinized the claim for interest during the suspension period of the IBC, noting that no CIRP could be initiated during this period as per Section 10A. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no interest could be claimed for this period and emphasized that it is not a recovery court, refraining from calculating interest beyond the suspension period.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application, citing the Applicant's failure to establish the quantum of the unpaid operational debt above the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore conclusively. Further investigation and clarification regarding the adjustment of payments and invoices were deemed necessary for a more accurate determination of the outstanding dues.