Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Regarding judging whether a dispute is a pre-existing dispute, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 9405 pf 2017, decided on September 21, 2017, (2018) 1 SCC 353] as follows:

"Therefore all that the adjudicating authority has to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not 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......So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2020 the application." (Para 51) Quite obviously it follows that the existence of dispute before the Section 8 notice was delivered has to be a plausible one and not a 'spurious defence'and "that the "dispute" is not patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence". The adjudicating authority has been enjoined with the responsibility to see that "the dispute truly exists and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory". Since there is no corroboration of the two letters dated 14.10. 2014 and 18.1.2016 either in the Corporate Debtor's reply to Section 8 demand notice or in the Corporate Debtor's reply to Section 9 application, and rebuttal of these letters by Respondent No. 1 calling them an afterthought, we are unable to be persuaded by the argument of the Corporate Debtor about pre-existence of dispute on the basis of these letters.

13. It is pointed out that various elements of default by the Operational Creditor raised by the Appellant are not relevant in the adjudication of the application of the operational creditor under Section 9 of the IBC and, therefore, we do not think the correctness or otherwise of these claims/counterclaims should have any bearing on the outcome of this appeal.

14. The Ld. Counsel of Appellant has referred to the following judgments in support of his contentions-

Mobilox Innovations Private Limited. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) I SCC 353  Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank &Anr., (2018) I SCC407 Kuntal Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. C.A.(AT)(I) No. 542 of 2020. Ved Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v. Pan Realtors Pvt. Ltd., C.A.(AT) (I) No. 908 of 2019.

Sandeep Reddy &Anr. v. Jaycon Infrastructure Ltd., C.A(AT)(I) No. 228 of 2017.

15. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited and Innovative Industries Limited civil appeals are basically about pre-existing dispute and that the Adjudicating Authority should be prima facie convinced about the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2020 pre-existence of a dispute before notice under Section 8 was sent, and not involve itself into examining the pre-existing dispute on merits. In the present case, since no pre-existing dispute is found to be present, the ratio of these judgments are not found applicable. The judgment in Kuntal Construction case, decided by NCLAT only follows the dictum well-settled by Mobilox case judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

17. The following judgments have been cited by Learned Counsel for Respondent: -

Mobilox Innovations Private Limited. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) I SCC 353  Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank &Anr., (2018) I SCC 407  K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirmal Company, (2018) SCC Online 1013  Sudhir Sales v. D. Art Furnitures MANU/NL/248/2018  YogendraYasupal v. Jigsaw Solutions, (2017) SCC Online NCLAT 293 The ratio in all these judgments support the dictum that the pre-