Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a recent case, in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited2, has categorically laid down that IBC is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. It is also laid down whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked.
In another latest judgement rendered in Transmission Corpn. Of A.P. Vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd.3, it has inter alia held that existence of un-disputed debt is sine qua non of initiating CIRP. As per para 34 of judgement, it is stated that Adjudicating Authority, while examining an application under Section 9 of Code, will have to determine:

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporate Debtor argued that the Section 9 Application is barred by limitation as the amount alleged to be due pertains to the month of March 2011 onwards whereas the Petition was filed on 26.10.2017; that the Demand Notice and From-V do not mention the Addendum Agreement; that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that the alleged Agreement was not properly executed; that the Appellant had terminated their Agreement with Sri Gowtham Academy of General and Technical Education (SGAGTE) on 08.02.2016; that there is a long standing relationship between the 'Operational Creditor' and the 'Corporate Debtor' because of which the 'Corporate Debtor' themselves contacted the end users i.e. SGAGTE to assess the amount 'due and payable'; that the 'Operational Creditor' had failed to provide the requisite support with request to the supplies provided by them as they were faulty; that the invoices were sent to SGAGTE and not to the 'Corporate Debtor'; that there was a total failure of systems for 18 days from 08.10.2013 to 25.10.2013; that there was a breach of clauses 6.1 and 6.8 of the Master Agreement which show the rights and obligations of the 'Operational Creditor'; that the matter at hand is only a suit for recovery camouflaged as an Application under Section 9 of 'IBC'; that the 'Operational Creditor' was obligated to spend Rs. 25/- Lakhs in Joint Media Advertising which was never done; that the 'Telugu content' and the 'Training Sessions' promised by the 'Operational Creditor' was never provided and these breaches amount to 'Pre-Existing Disputes' and hence Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 98 of 2019 the Learned Adjudicating Authority had rightly relied on the ratio in 'Mobilox Innovations Private Limited' V/s. 'Kirusa Software Private Limited', (2018) 1 SCC 353 and rejected the Application.

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited' V/s. 'Equipment Conductors and Cables Limited', (2019) 12 SCC 697, while deciding the issue of Pre-Existing Dispute and in 'Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'Kirusa Software (P) Limited'- 2017 1 SCC OnLine SC 353 has clearly laid down the law that the 'existence of dispute' must be Pre-Existing' i.e. it must exist before the receipt of the Demand Notice or invoice as the case may be. In 'Mobilox Innovations' (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows;

30. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforenoted Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Transmission Corporation' (Supra) and 'Mobilox Innovations', (Supra) that the dispute should be 'Pre-Existing', we are of the considered opinion that the material on record and the documentary evidence filed does not establish that there was any dispute prior to issuance of the Section 8 Demand Notice or that there was any assertion of facts supported by any evidence to establish existence of a dispute. The Demand Notice under Section 8(1) dated 08.08.2017 and the Reply which was filed one month later for the very first time raises these issues.