NCLAT Dismisses Appeal of Operational Creditor in IBC Section 9 Case Due to Pre-Existing Dispute. Claim for unpaid invoices rejected as Corporate Debtor raised genuine quality dispute before demand notice.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI In Favour of Accused
  • 144
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal filed by APL Apollo Tubes Limited (Operational Creditor) against the rejection of its application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). The Appellant had supplied steel pipes and tubes to Tanisha Scaffolding (India) Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) for marketing. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent failed to pay for invoices, including the last invoice dated 20.06.2017, and issued a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC on 01.02.2018, served on 05.02.2018. The Respondent opposed the application, alleging that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on the ground of existence of a pre-existing dispute. The NCLAT, after hearing both sides, upheld the decision, finding that the dispute was genuine and not a mere afterthought. The appeal was dismissed, and the rejection of the Section 9 application was confirmed.

Headnote

A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Operational Creditor - Pre-existing Dispute - Section 9 read with Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The appeal challenged the rejection of an application under Section 9 of the IBC for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, claimed that the Respondent failed to pay for supplies made. The Respondent contended that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of goods. The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority had rightly rejected the application as there was a genuine pre-existing dispute, and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in rejecting the Section 9 application on the ground of existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the Section 9 application is upheld.

Law Points

  • Pre-existing dispute
  • Operational Creditor
  • Section 9 IBC
  • Section 8 IBC
  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • Genuine dispute
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (NCLAT) (01) 18

TA (AT) No. 206/2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1285/2019)

2024-06-01

Mr. Rishab Singh, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh

APL Apollo Tubes Limited

Tanisha Scaffolding (India) Private Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against rejection of application under Section 9 of IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought initiation of CIRP against the Respondent for non-payment of dues.

Filing Reason

Respondent failed to pay for supplies made by Appellant, leading to default.

Previous Decisions

Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejected the Section 9 application on 05.09.2019 on ground of pre-existing dispute.

Issues

Whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties that bars the Section 9 application.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that it supplied goods and invoices were not paid, and demand notice was served. Respondent contended that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding quality of goods, and the application was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties, raised before the demand notice, is a valid ground for rejecting a Section 9 application under the IBC.

Judgment Excerpts

The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1285/2019 arises from the Impugned Judgment, as rendered by the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 05.09.2019 by virtue of which the Application preferred by the Appellant under section 9 of the I & B Code for the initiation of CIRP proceedings against the Respondent has been rejected.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of IBC before the NCLT, which was rejected on 05.09.2019. The Appellant then filed an appeal before the NCLAT, which was dismissed on 01.06.2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 9, Section 8(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals NCLAT Dismisses Appeal of Operational Creditor in IBC Section 9 Case Due to Pre-Existing Dispute. Claim for unpaid invoices rejected as Corporate Debtor raised genuine quality dispute before demand notice.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Custody of Seized Bullocks to Animal Welfare Trust in Preference to Accused Owner Under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court held that the welfare of animals is paramount and the trust, dedicated to animal we...