TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor on the ground that the Corporate Debtor committed default in paying the operational debt of Rs. 83,01,938/- (Rupees Eighty-Three Lakhs One Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Eight Only). The date of default is not stated in form-5 Part-IV as required under Rule 6(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016. 2. The following facts are not in dispute: (i). The Corporate Debtor was awarded with the contracts by Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (for short "BSEDCL") to provide Wi-Fi connections in 8 Engineering Colleges owned by the State Government. Later on, the contract was revised to provide Wi-Fi services only in 7 co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... more demand notice on the Corporate Debtor under Section 8 of IBC, the Corporate Debtor did not reply the notice nor make any payment. Hence, this application is filed to initiate CIRP of the Corporate Debtor on the ground of default in payment of outstanding amount as said above. 3. The Corporate Debtor is served with the notice of this application. It had appeared through its Managing Director, Mr. Kshitijbhai Prafulbhai Desai. He has filed affidavit in reply and contested the claim. 4. It is contended that there is a dispute pending about the services rendered by the Operational Creditor. It is pending since 2016. As per Clause 6 of MoU dated 29.03.2014, it was the duty of the Corporate Debtor to ensure quality of service. Since t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal debt; (c) the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor; (d) no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility; and (e) there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed under sub-section (4), if any. (ii) reject the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, if- (a) the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete; (b) there has been [payment] of the unpaid operational debt; (c) the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 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 to 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." It has further held that: "45. Going by the aforesaid test of "existence of a dispute", it is clear that without going into the merits of the dispute, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 8 of IBC sent by the Operational Creditor but had admittedly replied earlier notices pointing out the dispute about services rendered by the Operational Creditor, whether we can held that there is no pre-existing dispute pending in between them. 11. Along with the further affidavit, the Corporate Debtor brought on record the number of e-mails it has sent to the Operational Creditor, those are dated 19.12.2016 (at page No. 25), 26.12.2016(at page No. 27), 13.12.2016 (at page No. 33). 12. It is also not in dispute that two notices reply dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure H) and 23.11.2018 (Annexure K), the Corporate Debtor had brought to the notice of the Operational Creditor that there is a dispute pending in between them about the s....