NCLAT Upholds Rejection of Section 9 Application Due to Genuine Dispute Over Credit Note Discounts

The NCLAT upheld the rejection of the Section 9 application due to a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding special quantity discounts reflected in credit notes. The Operational Creditor admitted only 8 out of 17 credit notes, confirming the existence of an agreed business practice for discounts, while disputing the remainder. The Corporate Debtor's ledger showed an outstanding amount of Rs.22,56,833/-, which it was willing to pay, but the Operational Creditor refused acceptance. The Tribunal held that the dispute was plausible and not a feeble legal argument, warranting rejection of the application under Section 9. The Adjudicating Authority was correct in not conducting a detailed inquiry into the claims. The appeal was dismissed, with a direction that the Corporate Debtor shall pay the admitted amount if the Operational Creditor provides bank details.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether any amount exceeding Rs.22,56,833/- was due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor'Whether there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties sufficient to reject the Section 9 application under the principles laid down in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited (2018) 1 SCC 353?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On the quantum of debt, the Tribunal held that "no amount above Rs.22,56,833/- was due" as per the ledger accounts maintained by the Corporate Debtor, which were supported by admitted credit notes reflecting special quantity discounts; thus, the larger claim of Rs.1,81,45,943/- was not established.Regarding the dispute, the Tribunal found that the reply to the demand notice dated 11.01.2019 constituted a "notice of dispute" raising a "plausible contention" supported by evidence, particularly concerning the issuance and denial of credit notes for special quantity discounts; therefore, the Section 9 application was rightly rejected on the ground of pre-existing dispute as per the Mobilox principles.

RATIONALE:

The Tribunal applied the statutory framework under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's guidance in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited, which requires the adjudicating authority to reject a Section 9 application if a "plausible dispute" exists prior to the receipt of the demand notice.The Tribunal analyzed the ledger accounts, credit notes, and correspondence, noting that the Operational Creditor admitted issuance of eight credit notes for special quantity discounts, thereby acknowledging a business practice contrary to its denial of any agreement on such discounts.The Tribunal gave weight to the Corporate Debtor's ledger accounts and documentary evidence, including credit and debit notes, and found the Operational Creditor's claim of a larger outstanding amount to be inconsistent and unsupported.The Tribunal emphasized that the mere fact that the admitted outstanding amount exceeded Rs.1 Lakh did not mandate admission of the Section 9 application, especially where the Corporate Debtor had offered to pay the admitted amount and a dispute existed over the balance.The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's direction to assess whether any amount beyond Rs.22,56,833/- was due and to consider the existence of a pre-existing dispute, holding that the dispute was neither spurious nor hypothetical but a genuine commercial disagreement warranting rejection of the application.

---