Corporate debtor loses right to arbitration under Section 8 after filing belated application months following insolvency reply

The NCLAT dismissed an appeal where a corporate debtor sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act after filing a reply to a Section 7 insolvency application. The tribunal held that the right to move a Section 8 application was forfeited as it was filed belatedly in March 2024, months after the December 2023 reply. The financial creditor had previously initiated arbitration proceedings in 2019, but the arbitrator terminated proceedings in 2021. The NCLAT ruled that Section 7 applications take precedence over arbitration proceedings, and allowing Section 8 would defeat the IBC's purpose. The corporate debtor had admitted debt and default in settlement offers made in 2019 and 2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the initiation of arbitration proceedings by the Financial Creditor precludes the filing of a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
2. Whether the Corporate Debtor's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was maintainable after filing a reply to the Section 7 application.
3. Whether the acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor affects the proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Arbitration vs. Section 7 Application:

The primary issue was whether the Financial Creditor's initiation of arbitration proceedings barred them from filing a Section 7 application under the IBC. The Financial Creditor had initially appointed an arbitrator, but the arbitration was terminated due to the appointment being contrary to the law. The Appellant argued that since arbitration was initiated, the Section 7 application should not proceed. However, the tribunal held that the initiation of arbitration does not preclude the filing of a Section 7 application. The tribunal emphasized that the remedy under Section 7 is a special remedy under the IBC, intended to address insolvency promptly. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in `Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd.', clarifying that the adjudicating authority must first decide on the Section 7 application, regardless of pending arbitration proceedings. The tribunal concluded that allowing the Section 8 application would delay the insolvency resolution process, contrary to the objectives of the IBC.

2. Maintainability of Section 8 Application:

The tribunal examined whether the Corporate Debtor's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable after submitting a reply to the Section 7 application. According to Section 8, a party must apply for arbitration not later than the date of submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute. The Corporate Debtor filed the Section 8 application after filing its reply, thereby forfeiting its right to seek arbitration. The tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in `Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors.', which held that a party forfeits its right to arbitration if it submits to the court's jurisdiction by filing a reply. Thus, the tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor's application under Section 8 was not maintainable.

3. Acknowledgment of Debt:

The tribunal considered the acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor, which was relevant to the Section 7 application. The Financial Creditor had pleaded that the Corporate Debtor acknowledged its outstanding liability through letters dated 22.08.2019 and 25.05.2022. These acknowledgments were made within the limitation period, extending the limitation for the debt claim. The tribunal noted that the acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its One Time Settlement offers further substantiated the existence of debt and default. The tribunal concluded that the acknowledgment of debt supported the Financial Creditor's claim under Section 7, reinforcing the adjudicating authority's decision to proceed with the insolvency application.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision to reject the Corporate Debtor's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The tribunal held that the initiation of arbitration did not bar the Section 7 application under the IBC, and the Corporate Debtor's acknowledgment of debt substantiated the Financial Creditor's claim. The tribunal emphasized the priority of insolvency resolution under the IBC, ensuring that the process is not delayed by arbitration proceedings.

---