TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 9 IBC CIRP Restored as Pre-Existing Dispute Claim Rejected as Moonshine, NCLT Admission Upheld</h1> SC allowed the operational creditor's appeal and restored the NCLT order admitting the Section 9 IBC application and initiation of CIRP against the ... Admissibility of section 9 application - initiation of CIRP - pre-existing dispute between the parties as to the firm’s debt prior to institution of the application under Section 9 of the IBC - HELD THAT:- Referring to the aforestated decision in Tata Consultancy Services Limited vs. SK Wheels Private Limited, Resolution Professional, Vishal Ghisulal Jain [2021 (11) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT], this Court reiterated that the adjudicating authority is duty-bound to advert to the material before him, as made available along with the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC by the financial creditor to indicate default along with the version of the corporate debtor. It was noted that this is for the reason that, keeping in perspective the scope of the proceedings under the IBC and there being a timeline for the consideration to be made by the adjudicating authority, the process cannot be defeated by a corporate debtor by raising moonshine defence only to delay the process. Applying this legal standard to the case on hand, there are no hesitation in holding that the defence of pre-existing disputes sought to be put forth by the CD was mere moonshine and had no credible basis or foundation. There was no dispute worth the name existing as on the date of issuance of the demand notice by the firm warranting the withholding of the operational debt due and payable by the CD. The attempt to project such pre-existing disputes was mere bluster and did not have the effect of non-suiting the firm. The NCLAT, however, lost sight of these critical facts while dislodging the order of admission passed by the NCLT on the application filed by the firm under Section 9 of the IBC. The NCLAT, not being informed of the full facts, attributed delay to the firm and failed to attach value and consequence to the CD’s own ledger account which clearly negated the claim of pre-existing disputes, as the minor issues raised by the CD obviously did not have the effect of either stopping further supplies by the firm or further payments to the firm by the CD. The NCLAT also failed to attach requisite importance to the email dated 04.08.2021 sent by the CD along with the said ledger account, that clearly evidenced that more than the threshold amount was due and payable to the firm even after adjustment of the amounts mentioned in the debit notes and voucher. The judgment dated 13.03.2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, is accordingly set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether a 'pre-existing dispute' under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was established so as to bar admission of the operational creditor's application for initiation of CIRP. 1.2 Whether communications and conduct, including the corporate debtor's ledger confirmations and post-demand notice payments, negated the plea of pre-existing dispute. 1.3 Whether the reply sent by a suspended director after commencement of a prior CIRP could be relied upon to establish a pre-existing dispute. 1.4 Whether the delay between issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 and filing of the application under Section 9 indicated existence of disputes sufficient to defeat admission. 1.5 Whether the appellate tribunal correctly applied the settled legal standard on 'pre-existing dispute' and 'moonshine defence' under the IBC. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Whether a 'pre-existing dispute' under Section 9 of the IBC was established so as to bar admission of the operational creditor's application for initiation of CIRP. Legal framework 2.1 The Court referred to the test in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, holding that on a Section 9 application the adjudicating authority must determine: (i) existence of an operational debt; (ii) whether it is due and unpaid; and (iii) whether, on the date of receipt of the demand notice, there was an existing dispute or pending suit/arbitration regarding such dispute. A spurious, hypothetical, illusory, or mere bluster defence cannot defeat admission. 2.2 The Court also recalled the pre-IBC line of authorities under the Companies Act, 1956, that a winding-up petition cannot be used to enforce a debt bona fide disputed and that a defence must be substantial and not 'mere moonshine'. These principles were treated as applicable in assessing 'pre-existing dispute' under the IBC. Interpretation and reasoning 2.3 The operational creditor's claim was for an admitted running account based on supplies of pipes and cables. The corporate debtor's own ledger (01.04.2017-01.04.2021) communicated on 04.08.2021 showed a closing debit balance of Rs. 2,49,93,690.80 due to the creditor. A subsequent ledger (01.04.2020-30.03.2022) carried forward this balance, recorded payments totalling Rs. 70 lakh in 2020, and showed a closing balance of Rs. 1,79,93,690.80, matching the principal claimed in the Section 8 notice. 2.4 In the 04.08.2021 email, the corporate debtor disputed only three minor entries (two debit notes and one voucher, all of modest amounts relating to 2018), while simultaneously certifying the overall debit balance. The Court held that these limited objections did not amount to a dispute concerning liability for the admitted substantial operational debt. 2.5 Earlier exchanges in 2018-2019 raised issues of alleged short supply and quality, but these did not result in cessation of supplies or payments. The continuous business relationship and payments, including after those communications, indicated that any issues raised did not crystallise into a genuine dispute about the claimed debt. 2.6 The Court noted that even after issuance of the Section 8 demand notice and the subsequent replies in November 2021, the corporate debtor paid a further Rs. 61 lakh towards the creditor's dues. The Court reasoned that such substantial post-notice payments were inconsistent with the existence of a genuine pre-existing dispute and counter-claims; a debtor facing a real dispute and cross-claims would ordinarily withhold payment. 2.7 The core disputes later asserted were: (i) alleged non-supply against two specific invoices; (ii) alleged short/faulty supply of cables; and (iii) alleged huge losses and threat of blacklisting. The Court examined each and found them unsupported or inconsistent with the debtor's own records and conduct, thereby lacking credibility. Conclusions 2.8 The Court held that no bona fide pre-existing dispute existed on the date of the Section 8 demand notice sufficient to bar admission under Section 9. 2.9 The defence of pre-existing dispute was characterised as 'mere moonshine' and 'mere bluster', without credible basis or foundation, and could not non-suit the operational creditor. Issue 2: Whether communications and conduct, including the corporate debtor's ledger confirmations and post-demand notice payments, negated the plea of pre-existing dispute. Interpretation and reasoning 2.10 The Court attached significant weight to the corporate debtor's own ledger accounts and the 04.08.2021 email, which expressly confirmed the outstanding balance exceeding the statutory threshold, after adjusting the minor debit notes and voucher. These documents evidenced that the debtor accepted the liability for the principal amount claimed. 2.11 The Court observed that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal failed to accord due importance to these ledgers and the 04.08.2021 email, instead focusing on a later reply from a suspended director. This omission was found to be a serious error, as the corporate debtor's own contemporaneous records directly undermined its claim of any substantial dispute. 2.12 The Court further noted that the debtor's ongoing payments, including Rs. 61 lakh made after the Section 8 notice and the November 2021 replies, were inconsistent with the assertion of a serious dispute and counter-claims. Such payments, made despite the supposed disputes, reinforced the absence of a real controversy on liability for the claimed amount. Conclusions 2.13 The Court concluded that the debtor's own ledgers and conduct, particularly the confirmation of the outstanding balance and the post-notice payments, clearly negated the existence of a genuine dispute as to the operational debt. Issue 3: Whether the reply sent by a suspended director after commencement of a prior CIRP could be relied upon to establish a pre-existing dispute. Interpretation and reasoning 2.14 A prior CIRP against the same corporate debtor had been initiated by order dated 06.09.2021 on an application by another operational creditor, and an Interim Resolution Professional had assumed management. 2.15 The reply dated 20.11.2021 to the Section 8 demand notice was sent by the corporate debtor's Technical Director at a time when he stood suspended under the IBC due to the ongoing CIRP. The Court held that he had no authority to respond on behalf of the corporate debtor during this period. 2.16 The Court also observed that the Interim Resolution Professional's communication dated 19.11.2021 made a general reference to sub-standard and short supply, relying on an earlier 24.12.2018 email, but did not specify or quantify any debit charges. The suspended director's reply the following day sought to amplify these allegations with unsubstantiated assertions and quantified counter-claims. 2.17 Given both the lack of authority of the suspended director and the absence of particulars or supporting material for the alleged deficiencies and counter-claims, the Court found that the NCLAT erred in placing reliance on this reply as the main foundation for a pre-existing dispute. Conclusions 2.18 The Court held that the reply by the suspended director was not a reliable or legally valid basis to establish a pre-existing dispute under Section 9, and should not have been treated as such by the appellate tribunal. Issue 4: Whether the delay between issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 and filing of the application under Section 9 indicated existence of disputes sufficient to defeat admission. Interpretation and reasoning 2.19 The NCLAT treated the interval between the Section 8 notice dated 25.08.2021 and the filing of the Section 9 application on 10.02.2023 as indicative of persisting disputes. 2.20 The Court found that, during a substantial part of this interval, a prior CIRP was already underway against the corporate debtor pursuant to an order dated 06.09.2021. In such a situation, initiation of a separate CIRP by the operational creditor was procedurally impossible. 2.21 The operational creditor followed the proper course by lodging its claim before the Interim Resolution Professional on 09.11.2021. Only after learning of an application under Section 12A seeking withdrawal of that earlier CIRP, and in view of the settlement with the other operational creditor, did it file its own Section 9 application in February 2023. 2.22 The Court held that the delay was adequately explained by these procedural constraints and developments and could not be treated as an indicator of disputed liability. Conclusions 2.23 The Court concluded that the time gap between the demand notice and the Section 9 application did not evidence a pre-existing dispute and should not have been used to disallow admission. Issue 5: Whether the appellate tribunal correctly applied the settled legal standard on 'pre-existing dispute' and 'moonshine defence' under the IBC. Legal framework 2.24 The Court reiterated that under Mobilox and subsequent decisions, the adjudicating authority must: identify whether an actual dispute exists on the date of the Section 8 notice; distinguish genuine disputes from spurious or illusory ones; and avoid examining the merits in detail while ensuring that defences are not mere 'moonshine'. 2.25 The Court also referred to authorities under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC holding that the adjudicating authority must consider both the creditor's material demonstrating default and the debtor's defence, but must reject sham or delaying tactics that undermine the statutory timelines. Interpretation and reasoning 2.26 Applying these principles, the Court scrutinised the specific grounds raised by the corporate debtor: (a) Alleged non-supply under two invoices: The creditor produced delivery challan and e-way bill for one invoice and tax invoice plus transport bill for the other, including truck registration details and 'full trailer' notation. The Court regarded the debtor's belated challenge on transport capacity as unconvincing and observed that it was implausible that the creditor had fabricated contemporaneous 2019 documents in anticipation of future litigation. This defence was found prima facie untenable. (b) Alleged short/faulty supply of cables: The debtor's own communications shifted from no clear quantification (24.12.2018) to 20,000 meters (03.07.2019), and later to 80 kilometres in the November 2021 replies, without any explanation for this escalation. The Court considered this inflation unexplained and unsupported. (c) Alleged huge losses and threat of blacklisting: No documentary evidence was produced to support claims of financial loss or any complaint/blacklisting threat from the specified client. The quantification of the counter-claim (Rs. 67,96,800 for 80 km of faulty cable and Rs. 50 lakh for non-supply under the two invoices) was also unexplained. 2.27 The Court held that these defences, when tested against the debtor's own ledgers, continuous payments, and lack of substantive material, were speculative, inflated, and unsubstantiated. They did not amount to a real controversy over the debt as required by Mobilox. 2.28 The Court found that the NCLAT overlooked: (i) the admitted ledger balances; (ii) the limited nature of the 04.08.2021 objections; (iii) the absence of authority for the suspended director's reply; (iv) the substantial post-notice payments; and (v) the impact of the prior CIRP on the timing of the Section 9 filing. By concentrating on the alleged disputes and delay without these contextual facts, the NCLAT misapplied the legal standard. Conclusions 2.29 The Court held that the appellate tribunal failed to properly apply the settled law on pre-existing dispute and moonshine defence under the IBC. 2.30 The impugned appellate judgment dislodging the admission order was set aside, and the order of admission under Section 9 was restored, with directions that further CIRP proceedings continue in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
