2025 (8) TMI 809 - AT - IBC

NCLAT Rules Creditor Must Prove Undisputed Debt and Non-Payment Before Starting CIRP Under Section 9 IBC

SUDHA ELECTRICAL THROUGH IT PROPRIETOR YOGENDRA CHAUDHARY Versus LEENA POWER-TECH ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.

The NCLAT upheld the dismissal of the CIRP petition filed under Section 9 IBC, emphasizing that the creditor must prove an undisputed debt and non-payment ... Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP Proceedings under Section 9 IBC - pre-existing dispute between the parties vis-à-vis a debt which the appellant claims that the respondent had defaulted to pay despite a demand - maintainability of CIRP u/s 10A of IBC - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant has not issued any of the five invoices. It also goes as an admitted fact that on 24.06.2020 (when Covid Wave I was in full swing), that the respondent had paid Rs. Rs.76,00,975/- towards part payment of the invoice amount besides Rs.4,22,277 towards GST at 18%. This is followed by a payment of Rs.25.0 lakhs on 18.04.2023, some two months after the CIRP was laid. Here, the respondent would argue that whatever amount it had paid only constitutes 20% of the invoice value which the respondent is required to pay as per Clause 5 of the work Order - What could be gathered here is that the respondent had admitted that the appellant had performed its contractual obligation, whether wholly or partly, for the respondent would not have paid anything if the appellant had failed to perform its part of the contract at all. IBC is not intended as a recovery mechanism for realization of debts. Only where a company by design or default deny the creditor of their dues, law steps into take control of the affairs of the erring company and arrange to pay off the creditors either through the process of resolution or liquidation. Therefore, in every case where a creditor initiates a CIRP, the burden is on the creditor to satisfy the conscience of the Adjudicating Authority that there exists a debt which the respondent has not disputed at any time prior to the institution of the CIRP, and that the debt is not paid when it fell due for payment despite a demand to pay. It does not even require a debtor to contest the issue, for the statutory burden is on the creditor to establish that its case qualifies for initiating the CIRP against the debtor. A failure to reply to Sec.8 IBC ipso facto cannot be construed as an admission of debt or the time of payment at all circumstances. It depends on the facts of each case. In the context of the facts of this case, given the fact that the time of first part-payment of Rs.76,00,975/- is made on 24.06.2020, after 90 days from the date of the last invoice (dated 13.03.2020), marginally tilts the scale in favour of the respondent yet not conclusively, for, existence of the work order and whether the appellant had performed its part of the contract based on the terms of the work order have to be probed independently, and as stated earlier, the adjudicating authority cannot decide this basic fact on the thumb rule of preponderance of probability which civil court employs without restriction. It is not proposed to interfere with its ultimate conclusion of dismissing the CIRP under Sec.9 IBC, but modifies its line of reasoning: (a) the Adjudicating Authority has presumed the existence of the work Order which the respondent contends, but it requires further proof and that unless it is ascertained, it would be difficult to hold if the time for payment of the invoice amount has arisen; (b) since the Adjudicating Authority has presumed the existence of work Orders, it ventured to calculate whether the date for payment of each of the invoice-amount after the expiry of 90 days from the date of invoice fell after 25.03.2020 for invoking Sec.10A IBC. Since it is proposed not to presume the Work Order as the foundation of the contract between the parties, it is decided not to speculatively apply the 90 days waiting period for payment as contemplated in Clause 5 of the Work Order. The Order of the Adjudicating Authority does not require to be interfered with and consequently it is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED Whether the petition to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is maintainable in the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor. Whether the CIRP initiation is barred under Section 10A of the IBC due to the timeline of default coinciding with the COVID-19 lockdown period. Whether the existence and terms of the alleged work orders (written contracts) affect the determination of debt and default under the IBC. Whether the Operational Creditor has established the existence of an undisputed debt and default as required under Sections 3(11) and 3(12) of the IBC. Whether failure to respond to the Section 8 notice under the IBC amounts to admission of debt or default. The extent and nature of inquiry permissible at the stage of admission of CIRP under the IBC, especially regarding disputed facts and documents. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Maintainability of CIRP Petition in Presence of Pre-Existing Dispute Legal Framework and Precedents: The IBC mandates that CIRP can be initiated only where there is an undisputed debt and default. The Supreme Court has held that the adjudicating authority must ascertain whether the dispute is 'prima facie' or 'plausible' and not a feeble legal argument or an assertion unsupported by evidence. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted conflicting contentions: the respondent asserts the existence of written work orders with specific payment terms and conditions including certification requirements, while the appellant claims the contract was oral and denies receipt of such work orders. This creates a factual dispute as to the terms governing the debt and its payment. Key Evidence and Findings: The respondent produced work orders containing clauses specifying payment schedules and conditions precedent to payment (completion certificates, commissioning reports). The appellant denied these work orders were issued and contended the contract was oral. The respondent also contended the appellant failed to produce required completion certificates, justifying withholding of payment. Application of Law to Facts: Since the existence and terms of the work orders are disputed and are material to the question of when the debt became due, the Court held that this factual dispute is not a patently feeble or frivolous claim and thus cannot be summarily rejected at the CIRP admission stage. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the respondent admitted the invoices and made part payments, implying acknowledgment of debt. The respondent countered that payments were only partial and in accordance with contract terms, and the appellant failed to fulfill contractual conditions precedent to full payment. Conclusion: The Court found a pre-existing dispute on material facts regarding the contract and the debt, which is a valid ground to refuse initiation of CIRP under Section 9. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 10A IBC (COVID-19 Moratorium) to Bar CIRP Initiation Legal Framework: Section 10A of the IBC prohibits initiation of CIRP where the default occurred between 25th March 2020 and 24th March 2021, the COVID-19 moratorium period. Court's Reasoning: The appellant contended that the invoices were issued before 25th March 2020, thus the default arose prior to the moratorium. The respondent argued that the payment terms in the work orders require 90 days from invoice date before payment is due, pushing the default into the moratorium period, thus barring CIRP. Findings: Since the existence and terms of the work orders are disputed, the Court declined to assume the 90-day payment period applies. Without establishing the contract terms, the timing of default cannot be conclusively fixed. Conclusion: The Court refrained from applying Section 10A embargo without resolving the factual dispute on contract terms and time of default. Issue 3: Existence of Debt and Default under Sections 3(11) and 3(12) IBC Legal Framework: 'Debt' under Section 3(11) means a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt. 'Default' under Section 3(12) means non-payment of debt when whole or part or installment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not paid by the debtor. Court's Interpretation: The Court emphasized that for initiating CIRP, the creditor must prove the existence of an undisputed debt and that the debt has become due and payable at the time of default. Mere raising of invoices or assertion of debt is insufficient if the payment terms or conditions precedent are disputed. Key Evidence: The appellant issued five invoices between January and March 2020, raised demand notices, and received partial payments from the respondent. The respondent acknowledged part payment representing 20% of invoice value, as per the alleged contract, and withheld balance pending completion certificates. Application of Law: The Court found that the existence of debt is not in dispute, but the time when the debt became due is contested due to contractual conditions. The respondent's withholding of payment based on non-fulfillment of conditions precedent creates a genuine dispute. Conclusion: The debt and default are not established beyond controversy; hence, CIRP initiation is not justified. Issue 4: Effect of Failure to Respond to Section 8 Notice Legal Framework: Section 8 requires the Operational Creditor to issue a demand notice or copy of invoice demanding payment. The debtor may reply to the notice denying the debt or raising dispute. Court's Reasoning: The Court held that failure to reply to the Section 8 notice does not ipso facto amount to admission of debt or default. The facts and circumstances of each case determine the effect of non-response. Findings: In this case, despite no reply to the Section 8 notice, the respondent's partial payments and assertion of contractual conditions for payment indicate a dispute rather than admission. Conclusion: Non-response to Section 8 notice is not conclusive proof of undisputed debt or default. Issue 5: Nature and Extent of Inquiry at CIRP Admission Stage Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court has clarified that the adjudicating authority's role at admission stage is limited to a prima facie examination to see if there is a plausible dispute requiring further investigation. It is not a full-fledged trial or detailed inquiry. Court's Interpretation: The Court observed that the dispute regarding existence of work orders and contractual terms is a plausible dispute that cannot be resolved summarily. The adjudicating authority cannot decide complex factual disputes based on preponderance of probability at this stage. Conclusion: The Court upheld the limited scope of inquiry at CIRP admission and held that the factual disputes raised by the respondent are sufficient to reject the petition. Additional Observations The Court acknowledged that the respondent's partial payments and confirmation of invoice values indicate some performance by the appellant, but do not conclusively establish undisputed debt or default. The Court emphasized that IBC is not a debt recovery mechanism but a resolution process triggered only when debt and default are undisputed and due. The Court noted the importance of protecting corporate debtors from frivolous or premature CIRP initiation that may disrupt ongoing business and administration. The Court modified the reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority by refusing to presume the existence of the work orders and declined to apply Section 10A embargo without resolving the factual dispute. Final Conclusion The appeal against dismissal of the CIRP petition under Section 9 of the IBC was dismissed. The Court found that the existence of a pre-existing dispute regarding the contract terms and payment conditions, coupled with the unresolved question of when the debt became due, precluded the initiation of CIRP. The Court refrained from applying the COVID-19 moratorium provisions without establishing the contractual foundation. The decision of the Adjudicating Authority was upheld, though its reasoning was modified to reflect the necessity of resolving factual disputes before admitting CIRP.