Operational creditor's Section 9 application upheld despite debtor's claims of contingent payment and pre-existing disputes

The NCLAT Chennai dismissed an appeal challenging admission of a Section 9 application by an operational creditor. The Corporate Debtor argued that payment was contingent on receipts from a third party and claimed pre-existing disputes. The Tribunal held that contract clauses regarding payment schedules did not negate the liability for unpaid operational debt. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, the Adjudicating Authority correctly determined that operational debt exceeded the prescribed amount and liability was established through documentary evidence. No pre-existing dispute was proven before the demand notice, making the Section 9 admission legally justified.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Impugned Order dated 19.04.2022 admitting the application u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Existence and impact of BACK-TO-BACK payment arrangement on the liability of the Corporate Debtor.
3. Consideration of prior disputes or pending proceedings affecting the liability of the Corporate Debtor.
4. Legal correctness of the Adjudicating Authority's decision to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and subsequent liquidation.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order:
The Appellant challenged the Impugned Order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, which admitted the application u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant, a Shareholder, Promoter, and erstwhile Director, argued that the order was unjustified due to the BACK-TO-BACK payment arrangement with M/s. GVK Coal (Tokisud) Company Pvt. Ltd.

2. BACK-TO-BACK Payment Arrangement:
The Appellant contended that payments to the Operational Creditor were contingent on receiving payments from M/s. GVK Coal, as per the BACK-TO-BACK payment arrangement. However, the Tribunal found no specific clause in the contract agreement or purchase orders that deferred payments to the Operational Creditor based on receipts from M/s. GVK Coal. The Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor's defense of BACK-TO-BACK payment was not supported by the contractual documents.

3. Prior Disputes or Pending Proceedings:
The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd. vs Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., which established that the Adjudicating Authority must determine the existence of operational debt, its due and payable status, and any prior disputes. The Tribunal found no evidence of any dispute or intention to pay the amount due before the Demand Notice was issued by the Operational Creditor. The non-release of funds by M/s. GVK Coal was deemed irrelevant to the Corporate Debtor's liability to the Operational Creditor.

4. Decision to Initiate CIRP and Liquidation:
The NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, admitted the Corporate Debtor into CIRP on 19.04.2022, and after 10 meetings of the Committee of Creditors (COC), the Liquidation was ordered on 22.05.2023. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the admission of proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was justified and did not suffer from any apparent error of law or fact. The Tribunal dismissed the Company Appeal, affirming the correctness of the CIRP initiation and subsequent liquidation order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the Impugned Order and the initiation of CIRP and liquidation proceedings. The defense of BACK-TO-BACK payment arrangement was rejected, and no prior disputes or pending proceedings were found to affect the Corporate Debtor's liability.

---