Operational debt, pre-existing dispute and limitation defeated insolvency claim over disputed refund of advance money.

Refund of advance money for non-supply was not treated as an undisputed operational debt because the liability was disputed and had not crystallised. The record showed a genuine pre-existing dispute over forfeiture, adjustment and later commercial dealings, so the insolvency application could not proceed on a plausible non-spurious dispute already in existence. The demand was also held time-barred, as the refund claim had accrued more than three years before the insolvency notice. Taken together, the claim failed for want of an operational debt, the existence of a pre-existing dispute, and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the claim for refund of advance money constituted an operational debt in the absence of an undisputed liability; (ii) whether the dispute regarding forfeiture and subsequent business dealings amounted to a pre-existing dispute barring proceedings under the insolvency code; (iii) whether the demand notice issued after more than three years was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the claim for refund of advance money constituted an operational debt in the absence of an undisputed liability.

Analysis: The amount claimed arose from advance payment made for supply of sugar, with the controversy centring on non-supply, later correspondence, and the alleged forfeiture of the advance under the parties' arrangement. The claim was not shown to be a crystallised and undisputed liability payable by the corporate debtor. For invocation of the insolvency process, debt and default must co-exist, and the claim must fall within the statutory conception of debt.

Conclusion: The claim was not established as an undisputed operational debt.

Issue (ii): whether the dispute regarding forfeiture and subsequent business dealings amounted to a pre-existing dispute barring proceedings under the insolvency code.

Analysis: The record disclosed negotiations, revival of business relations, later supply arrangements, and a stand that the advance stood adjusted or forfeited under the commercial understanding. These facts showed a genuine dispute about payability and about the effect of the forfeiture arrangement. Applying the test that the adjudicating authority must reject an application where there is a plausible, non-spurious dispute already in existence, the claim fell within the category of a pre-existing dispute.

Conclusion: The existence of a pre-existing dispute barred admission of the insolvency application.

Issue (iii): whether the demand notice issued after more than three years was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand for refund had first been made in May 2015, while the insolvency demand notice was issued only in June 2018. On that footing, the claim was beyond the prescribed three-year period counted from the date the refund became due. The reply to the later notice did not displace the original date of accrual for limitation purposes on the facts found.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application failed on the combined grounds that the claimed amount was not shown to be an undisputed operational debt, a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties, and the demand was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: An application by an operational creditor must be rejected where the claim is subject to a genuine pre-existing dispute or is not shown to be an undisputed debt, and a stale refund claim cannot be revived for insolvency purposes after expiry of limitation.

---