Operational creditor cannot initiate Section 9 IBC proceedings when pre-existing disputes exist before demand notice

NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal challenging rejection of Section 9 IBC application by operational creditor for recovery of dues from manpower services. The tribunal held that emails dated December 2018 to August 2019 evidenced pre-existing disputes regarding service adequacy, manpower shortages, and security lapses, occurring before the January 2020 demand notice. Citing Mobilox Innovation precedent, NCLAT ruled that existence of bonafide pre-existing dispute mandates rejection of insolvency applications under Section 9(5)(2)(d). The adjudicating authority's order dated March 5, 2024 was upheld, confirming that operational creditors cannot initiate insolvency proceedings when genuine disputes exist prior to demand notice issuance.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
2. Alleged pre-existing dispute between the parties.
3. Non-payment of dues by the Corporate Debtor.
4. Alleged deficiencies in the services provided by the Operational Creditor.
5. Rejection of the application by the Adjudicating Authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of CIRP Under Section 9 of IBC:

The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor due to non-payment of dues arising from the supply of manpower services. The application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds of a pre-existing dispute.

2. Alleged Pre-Existing Dispute:

The core issue was whether a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties before the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority found that there were multiple emails exchanged between the parties, indicating disputes regarding the quality and adequacy of services provided by the Appellant. These emails were dated 18.12.2018, 22.05.2019, 26.05.2019, and 25.08.2019, all predating the demand notice issued on 14.01.2020.

3. Non-Payment of Dues by the Corporate Debtor:

The Appellant claimed that the Corporate Debtor defaulted on payments amounting to approximately Rs. 79 lakhs. The Appellant argued that these amounts were due for services provided and that the Corporate Debtor's failure to pay led to the withdrawal of services. The Respondent countered by stating that a substantial portion of the invoices had already been paid and that the remaining amounts were disputed due to alleged deficiencies in services.

4. Alleged Deficiencies in Services Provided by the Operational Creditor:

The Respondent contended that there were significant deficiencies in the services provided by the Appellant, including incidents of theft, shortage of manpower, and abandonment of services. These issues were communicated through various emails, which the Respondent used to argue that a pre-existing dispute existed. The Appellant, however, argued that these emails were either irrelevant or pertained to different sites and that the issues had been resolved by September 2019.

5. Rejection of the Application by the Adjudicating Authority:

The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application on the grounds that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Authority relied on the emails exchanged between the parties, which indicated that the Respondent had raised concerns about the Appellant's performance and the adequacy of manpower services before the issuance of the demand notice. The Appellant's contention that these emails were irrelevant was found unconvincing.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, finding that the existence of a bonafide dispute barred the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., which held that if a pre-existing dispute is established, the application under Section 9 must be dismissed. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had raised a plausible contention about a pre-existing dispute, which was not a moonshine or feeble legal argument, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Order:

The appeal was dismissed, and the Impugned Order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld. All related IAs pending were closed with no order as to costs.

---