Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Operational Debt & Contractual Relationship

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Petitioner failed to establish an "operational debt" exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, a formal contract or agreement, or an acknowledgment of debt with the Respondent-Corporate Debtor. The application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was deemed not maintainable due to the lack of a contractual relationship and operational debt. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and related interlocutory applications were closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was an "operational debt" exceeding Rs. 1 lakh.
2. Whether there was a formal contract or agreement between the parties.
3. Whether the letter dated 17.10.2018 constituted an "acknowledgement of debt".
4. Whether the "Application" under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable.

Summary:

Issue 1: Operational Debt
The Tribunal examined whether there was an "operational debt" exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, as defined under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited was referenced, which requires the adjudicating authority to determine if there is an operational debt, if the debt is due and payable, and if there is any dispute regarding the debt. The Tribunal concluded that the first issue was held against the Petitioner, as no debt could be established against the Corporate Debtor based on promissory estoppel.

Issue 2: Formal Contract or Agreement
The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner admitted there was no formal contract or agreement with the Respondent-Corporate Debtor. The Petitioner also did not raise any invoices against the Respondent. The Tribunal held that the request by the Respondent to revoke the suspension of work and complete outstanding work did not constitute a binding contract. Therefore, the second issue was also held against the Petitioner.

Issue 3: Acknowledgement of Debt
The Tribunal assessed the letter dated 17.10.2018, which the Petitioner claimed constituted an "acknowledgement of debt". It was determined that the letter did not establish an operational debt between the parties. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of "operational debt" under Section 5(21) of the IBC requires the provision of goods or services directly to the Respondent, which was not the case here. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Essar Oil Limited vs. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., which held that sub-contractors cannot sue the principal employer due to the lack of privity of contract.

Issue 4: Maintainability of Section 9 Application
The Tribunal concluded that the application under Section 9 of the IBC was not maintainable due to the absence of a contractual relationship and operational debt between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent was not a party to the agreements between ISPL and IEDCL, and ISPL and the Petitioner. The Tribunal also noted that the Petitioner had filed a claim in the CIRP proceedings of IL&FS, which was admitted by the Resolution Professional.

Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the amounts claimed could not fall within the definition of "acknowledgement of debt" in the absence of any contractual relationship. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the connected pending interlocutory applications were closed.

---