2025 (8) TMI 1352 - AT - IBC

Section 8(2)(a) IBC: Insolvency petition dismissed due to genuine pre-existing coal quality dispute and pending arbitration

Sendoz Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Versus IREL (India) Ltd.

Sendoz Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Versus IREL (India) Ltd. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a pre-existing dispute regarding quality of goods (GCV and ash content of supplied coal) existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice such that the Section 9 application is barred under Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. 2. Whether the date of default for payment (as pleaded in Form 5 and demand notice) is 23.03.2020 (thirty days from invoice dated 22.02.2020) or a later date, and whether the date of default falls within the exclusion/moratorium period stipulated under Section 10A of the Code, thereby affecting maintainability of the Section 9 application. 3. Whether contractual clauses (notably Clause 3.0 providing for testing and binding government-laboratory results, Clause 4.0 on rejection threshold, and Clause 8.0 on penalties) were complied with and whether results of tests (including NML report) are conclusive and determinative of quality dispute. 4. Whether the existence or invocation of an arbitration clause and subsequent appointment of an arbitrator precludes the maintainability of a Section 9 insolvency application where operational debt is alleged to have crystallised prior to such invocation. 5. Whether asserted discrepancies in multiple test reports (supplier-associated, respondent in-house, NML, CSIR-IMMT) give rise to a bona fide dispute that defeats a summary insolvency remedy under Section 9. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Existence of Pre-existing Dispute (quality of goods) prior to Demand Notice Legal framework: Section 8(2)(a) of the Code bars initiation of insolvency proceedings where a pre-existing dispute exists and Section 9 applications must be rejected where a bona fide pre-existing dispute is shown. The Adjudicating Authority must determine whether a dispute is real, genuine and substantiated by documents predating the demand notice (Mobilox principle). Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal considered Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software and subsequent NCLAT precedents (Ahluwalia Contracts; Henan Boom Gelatin; Jai International; Tek Travels) establishing that a mere assertion of dispute is insufficient; disputes raised after demand notice or without contemporaneous documentary foundation are ordinarily not regarded as pre-existing. Interpretation and reasoning: The Purchase Order's testing clause (Clause 3.0) prescribes the sampling and testing regime, including drawing samples in presence of both parties and referral to a government laboratory whose result is final and binding if supplier dissatisfied. The Tribunal found that samples were drawn as per the prescribed procedure and the onus lay on the purchaser to cause sampling/testing in the presence of the supplier's representative. The record shows no contemporaneous written objection to quality prior to the demand notice; the respondent's initial email of rejection (25.02.2020) was considered but the Tribunal evaluated it against the contractual sampling and testing regime and subsequent NML testing. The Tribunal scrutinised the timing and substance of objections and the sequence of laboratory tests, noting that binding government-lab results (NML) were obtained later and allegedly suppressed by the respondent. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A pre-existing dispute must be supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and adherence to contractual dispute-resolution/testing procedures; mere internal testing results or belated objections that do not follow contractually prescribed sampling/testing cannot by themselves establish a pre-existing dispute for purposes of Section 8(2)(a). Obiter - Comparative discrepancies among multiple test reports may be relevant to factual contest but do not ipso facto create a bona fide pre-existing dispute absent adherence to contract protocol and pre-demand documentation. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the defence of a pre-existing dispute was not shown to be genuine and substantiated by contemporaneous records predating the demand notice; the contractual testing protocol was followed and the binding government-lab test (NML) supported the supplier's position. Issue 2 - Date of Default and Section 10A Exclusion Period Legal framework: 'Default' as defined in Section 3(12) occurs when a debt becomes due and payable; the date of default is the date when payment became due under the contract. Section 10A carved out a moratorium/exclusion window for defaults occurring on or after 25.03.2020 (and up to the specified end date), affecting maintainability of insolvency applications. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed the statutory definition and approach that the contractual due date governs the date of default; reliance on extraneous events (e.g., date of legal notice) is not appropriate to re-fix the date of default for Section 10A purposes. Interpretation and reasoning: The Purchase Order provided 30 days payment terms; invoice dated 22.02.2020 resulted in payment due on 23.03.2020. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the date of legal notice as the date of default. Section 3(12) mandates fixing default when payment became due; the plain language of the contract and Form 5/demand notice support 23.03.2020 as date of default. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The contractual due date governs the date of default; defaults that crystallise prior to the Section 10A cut-off are not immunised by Section 10A merely because subsequent notices or responses occurred during the exclusion period. Obiter - Use of demand notices as determinative of default date is inappropriate where the contract specifies clear payment timelines. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the date of default was 23.03.2020 (outside the Section 10A exclusion window) and therefore the Section 9 application was not barred by Section 10A. Issue 3 - Contractual Testing Procedure and Binding Nature of Government-lab Results Legal framework: Contractual clauses govern sampling, testing and finality of results between commercial parties; where a purchase order provides for referee testing at specified government labs with finality, those procedures control resolution of quality disputes. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the contract as the primary source of rights and obligations and treated the NML report as significant given Clause 3.0's binding-referee-lab provision; precedents require scrutiny of whether contractual dispute-resolution steps were complied with before treating disputes as pre-existing. Interpretation and reasoning: Clause 3.0 permits supplier to request referee testing at a government lab and provides that such results shall be final and binding; the Appellant invoked that clause, sampling took place in the presence of parties, and NML tests yielded GCV well within contractual range. The Tribunal observed that respondent's internal tests and CSIR-IMMT report-obtained without notice-do not supplant a contractually agreed referee report. The Tribunal also noted alleged suppression of the NML report by the respondent. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where contractually agreed referee testing was conducted in accordance with contractual procedure and produced binding results favourable to the supplier, such results undermine a purchaser's assertion of a pre-existing quality dispute. Obiter - Internal/unilateral tests conducted outside agreed protocol carry limited weight to establish bona fide dispute. Conclusions: The Tribunal gave effect to the contractual testing regime and treated the NML report as decisive on quality, thereby negating the respondent's claimed pre-existing dispute. Issue 4 - Effect of Arbitration Clause and Invocation of Arbitration on Maintainability of Section 9 Application Legal framework: Arbitration clauses create a forum for contractual dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; however, the IBC addresses the insolvency remedy for non-payment of operational debt and maintainability under Section 9 depends on existence of a pre-existing dispute, not necessarily on the mere existence or later invocation of arbitration. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the established view that invocation of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator do not automatically preclude a Section 9 application where operational debt crystallised earlier and no bona fide pre-existing dispute is shown; reliance was placed on the distinct objectives of arbitration and insolvency law as recognised in authority. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that arbitration was invoked subsequently and that a Section 11 petition and appointment of arbitrator occurred after initiation of insolvency proceedings; the Court emphasised that invocation of arbitration, particularly post-demand or post-default, does not ipso facto defeat an independent insolvency remedy where the statutory tests for pre-existing dispute are not met. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Existence or later invocation of arbitration clause does not automatically bar a Section 9 application absent a genuine pre-existing dispute; procedural invocation of arbitration after default or during contested proceedings is not determinative on maintainability under the Code. Obiter - Parallel proceedings must be viewed in light of objectives of the Code and specific timelines of crystallisation of debt. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that arbitration invocation did not preclude maintainability of the Section 9 application in the circumstances of this case where no genuine pre-existing dispute was established and the date of default preceded the arbitration steps. Issue 5 - Discrepancies in Multiple Test Reports and Bona Fides of Respondent's Rejection Legal framework: Conflicting test reports may reflect factual disputes, but for Section 8(2)(a) purposes the dispute must be genuine, supported by contemporaneous evidence and in accordance with agreed contractual testing mechanisms. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed precedents requiring an objective assessment of the contemporaneity and substance of objections; post-hoc or selectively raised objections are treated skeptically if they do not align with contractual procedures or pre-date demand notice. Interpretation and reasoning: While multiple test results exhibited discrepancies, contractual procedure for sampling and referral to government lab was available and followed; the Tribunal emphasised that internal/unilateral reports obtained without adherence to procedure and failure to disclose favourable referee tests (NML) undermined the respondent's asserted bona fides. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Discrepancies between test reports do not automatically create a pre-existing dispute; adherence to contractual testing protocols and contemporaneous documentation determine whether a dispute is bona fide. Obiter - Suppression of favourable referee results by a party is a relevant factor in assessing genuineness of claimed dispute. Conclusions: The Tribunal treated the discrepancies as insufficient to establish a bona fide pre-existing dispute because contractually agreed sampling/testing procedure was followed and the binding government-lab report supported the supplier's position.