TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acs plus the reimbursement of expenses, Mobile Phone, Conveyance and travel expenses etc. The applicant was then upgraded as a director of the corporate debtor company on 05.10.2009. 3. It is submitted that due to non-allotment of license to operate mobile services by Government of India, the financial health of the company started deteriorating and applicant was paid less salary for the months May and June 2011, and thereafter vide letter dated 27.07.2011 respondent company requested the applicant to continue to render his services and promised that company will make good the dues of the applicant after receiving its dues from Government of India. 4. It has been stated that the applicant regularly reminded the company to pay his salary. Subsequently, a settlement was entered into between the applicant and the Respondent Company where in the Respondent Company has paid to the Petitioner USD 33,000/- (US Dollar Thirty- Three Thousand Only) and it was agreed that the balance amount shall be payable by the respondent company to the petitioner on receipt of the proceeds of the award in the foregoing International Arbitration titled "Tenoch Holdings Ltd. v. Republic of India [PCA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegally dispose of the movable property of the company consisting of two vehicles of the company and did not pay any proceeds in consideration of sales of the vehicles. It is the case of the respondent that the applicant has misappropriated the funds of the company. It is further alleged that no remuneration was ever offered to the applicant for his directorship in the company and there is an "existence of dispute in respect of operational debt" and the application is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the applicant has not provided any document which states the amount payable to him by the company as compensation for his services as a director. It is claimed that the debt in question is an imaginary figure as no confirmation from respondent company has been placed on record. 11. Heard the parties. 12. It is seen from the case records that the claim of the operational creditor has been disputed by the corporate debtor as is evident from the reply of the legal notice dated 24.05.2016, objections filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.P. No. 790 of 2016 and reply to demand notice dated 31.07.2017. Respondent company has contended that a sum of USD ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y showing a record of a suit or arbitration proceeding, the definition of dispute would have simply said dispute means a dispute pending in Arbitration or a suit. 21. Admittedly in sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the 'I & B Code', the Legislature used the words 'dispute includes a suit or arbitration proceedings'. If this is harmoniously read with Section (2) of Section 8 of the 'I& B Code', where words used are 'existence of a dispute, if any, and record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings,' the result is disputes, if any, applies to all kinds of disputes, in relation to debt and default. The expression used in sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 'I & B Code' 'existence of a dispute, if any,' is disjunctive from the expression 'record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings'. Otherwise, the words 'dispute, if any', in sub-section (2) of Section 8 would become surplus usage. 22. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 'I & B Code' cannot be read to mean that a dispute must be pending between the parties prior to the notice of demand and that too in arbitration or a civil c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t clear that the definition of "dispute" has to be given wide meaning so as to cover all type of disputes related to the amount of debt, services, default etc. 16. In the same case of Mobilox Innovative (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. [2017] 85 Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 9405 of 2017 vide order dt. 21.09.2017. inter alia has held that: "Therefore all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which required further investigation and that the 'dispute' is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However in doing so the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." (Emphasis given) 17. In the present matter, the corporate debtor has never admitted the clai....