SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, May 27, 2024

Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 4615

In the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal†

(BEFORE ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHAIRPERSON AND BARUN MITRA, MEMBER
(TECHNICAL))

Gaurav Dhawan … Appellant;

Versus
EE Limited & Another … Respondent.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 650 of 2022 [Arising out of order
dated 17.05.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National
Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP (IB) No. 1765/ND/2018]
Decided on November 22, 2022
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Mr. Siddharth Tandon, Advocates for Appellant;
Mr. Rishabh Govila, Advocate for R-2 for Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BARUN MITRA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL):— The present appeal, filed
under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’
in short) by the Appellant arises out of order dated 17.05.2022
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) and was passed by the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,
Court-III) in CP (IB) No. 1765/ND/2018. By the impugned order, the
Adjudicating Authority admitted the application filed under Section 9 of
the IBC by the Operational Creditor, present Respondent No. 1 and
initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ in short)
against the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved by this Impugned Order, the
present appeal has been preferred by the suspended Director of the
Corporate Debtor.
2. The brief facts of the case, as brought before us by the Appellant,
are that Falcon Business Resources Private Limited, the Corporate
Debtor entered into EE Framework Reseller Agreement (hereinafter
referred to as the Agreement) dated 20.03.2015 with EE Limited, the
Operational Creditor/Respondent No. 1 by which the Operational
Creditor was to provide SIM cards to the Corporate Debtor for reselling
to Indian clients travelling to U.K. to provide them mobile telecom
services in U.K. The Agreement guaranteed the Operational Creditor a
minimum spend commitment over 2 years of GBP 4,50,000 and
required the Operational Creditor to maintain 7000 accounts. The
agreement was valid for a period of 24 months and the parties had
agreed on the price to be levied on the customers and also sharing all
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

revenue between them. The contract between the two parties was
terminable by giving 30 day notice.
3. Admitting that the Agreement was operationalised and the
Operational Creditor had started providing the services, the Learned
Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Corporate Debtor had
raised a complaint with the team of the Operational Creditor that the
SIM cards provided by the Operational Creditor was not connected to
the network and hence unusable. This complaint e-mail was sent by the
Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor on 07.07.2015 as placed
at page 69 of Appeal Paper Book (‘APB’ in short) clearly stating that
the Corporate Debtor has not been able to use the EE Sim Cards for 3
months and therefore not able to generate revenues.
4. It was also emphatically submitted that the Corporate Debtor had
regularly exchanged Call Details Record (“CDR” in short) with the
Operational Creditor to substantiate the wrong charging of tariffs and
that they had claimed credits due to them. Stating that the Operational
Creditor had repeatedly submitted wrong and inflated invoices, these
billing discrepancies were communicated from time to time. It is
submitted that disputes regarding January CDR was raised on
10.03.2016 and that later on 05.07.2016, the Corporate Debtor had
mentioned that 13000 GBP was to be received from the Operational
Creditor against inflated invoices raised by the Operational Creditor for
the preceding months. Similarly, billing discrepancy on data bundle
from May to July had also been sent on 03.08.2016 by the Corporate
Debtor to the Operational Creditor. The ongoing credit issues with the
Operational Creditor and wrong charging of tariffs had persisted even in
September, October and December 2016. In-spite of such regular
communications having been sent to the Operational Creditor to settle
the billing error related disputes, no proper remedial action was taken.
5. Advancing the arguments further, it was pointed out by Learned
Counsel for Appellant that there is evidence of admission on the part of
the Respondent No. 1 in their communication (at page 120 of APB)
dated 04.05.2016 and repeat communications later that their invoices
were inflated and will be credited back. It was also added that towards
reconciling the billing discrepancies, the Operational Creditor was
approached several times for holding a meeting. However, these
requests were not responded to and therefore the disputes persisted
between the parties. Even for other types of complaints lodged by the
Appellant with the Operational Creditor like the nonworking of data
services, meetings were sought for purpose of resolution, which did not
materialize. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant also stated that the
Corporate Debtor had also claimed entitlement to damages for sub-par
service levels and compensation for suffering business loss.
6. Despite the Operational Creditor acknowledging the invoice
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

related issues, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that
the Respondent No. 1 not only took no steps to correct the situation but
instead disconnected the SIM cards in January 2017, which even by the
contract date was 3 months earlier than the date of termination,
without giving notice. This was a breach of Clause 20 of the Agreement
which stipulated 30 days' notice prior to disconnection. Ignoring the
fact that this sudden disconnection created inconvenience to the
customers of the Corporate Debtor and caused huge loss and damage
to the business of the Corporate Debtor, the Respondent No. 1 had
instead made a baseless demand of GBP 50000 in January 2017 to
reinstate the network lines.
7. Eventually, the Indian Collection Agency of the Operational
Creditor demanded GBP 78,296.31 from the Corporate Debtor and
threatened initiation of legal proceedings in October 2017. This was
contested by the Corporate Debtor on grounds of the Operational
Creditor having breached the Agreement; by not providing credits for
staged technology fund and staged airtime; non-revision of pricing;
faulty invoicing system; inflated billings and claim for damages etc. To
the Notice under Section 8 of IBC issued by the Operational Creditor on
23.06.2018, it was submitted by Learned Counsel for Appellant that the
Corporate Debtor replied on 29.06.2018 denying the claim as false and
fraudulent and that no adjudicated amount was due from them.
Further, the Operational Creditor was also informed about the counter-
claim against them. The Operational Creditor thereafter filed the
Section 9 IBC application dated 08.10.2018 claiming a total debt of
GBP 76,394.16 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The
Adjudicating Authority issued notice and after hearing the parties
admitted the Section 9 application. The Learned Counsel for the
Appellant contended that since the alleged debt claimed by the
Operational Creditor being a disputed debt and in the face of sufficient
cause to show that there was pre-existing dispute, admission of the
Section 9 application by the Adjudicating Authority was erroneous.
8. We have duly considered the detailed arguments advanced by the
Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the records carefully.
The Respondent No. 1 was not represented during the final hearing.
9. To appreciate the facts of the case, at the outset, it would be
useful to refer to Section 8 of the IBC regarding conditions for
admission of Section 9 application:—
“8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor—
(1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default,
deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debtor copy of
invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the
default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as
may be prescribed.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the
receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned
in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the operational
creditor—
(a) existence of a dispute, if any, or record of the pendency of
the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of
such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute;
(b) the payment of unpaid operational debt-
(i) by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic
transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of
the corporate debtor; or
(ii) by sending an attested copy of the record that the
operational creditor has encashed a cheque issued by the
corporate debtor.
Explanation : For the purposes of this section, a “demand notice”
means a notice served by an operational creditor to the corporate
debtor demanding payment of the operational debt in respect of
which the default has occurred.”
10. A reading of Section 8 of IBC indicates that the requisite
conditions necessary to trigger CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC are
existence of a debt due and its default by the corporate debtor; that
there has taken place delivery of demand notice of an unpaid and
undisputed debt; that there has been no payment of the unpaid and
undisputed debt within the period of 10 days of receipt of demand
notice and no real preexisting dispute is discernible.
11. This now brings us to the impugned order which has been
assailed by the Appellant. The relevant portion of the analysis and
findings of the Adjudicating Authority is as reproduced below:
“21. This application complies with the basic requirements of
Section 8/9 of IBC, 2016 and rules and regulations made
thereunder. The crux of the matter is that whether there exists a
dispute between the parties prior to delivery of notice of demand
u/s. 8 of IBC. If it is so, the other question which arises for our
consideration is whether undisputed amount of outstanding liability
is more than the threshold limit as prescribed u/s. 4 of IBC, 2016. As
far as first aspect is concerned, there have been a number of
communications between the operational creditor and corporate
debtor which make it apparent that there are certain strong
differences between the two. Thus, it becomes imperative for us to
find out what is the undisputed amount of liability.
22. To find an answer to the above query, we have carefully gone
through the emails exchanged between them. As per the email
dated 31.07.2017 firstly the corporate debtor has agreed at a sum of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GBP 23,544.13. Subsequently, an email was written by the corporate

debtor on 24.08.2017, wherein various claims have been made. On
this basis of this email, the corporate debtor has stated that
corporate debtor had not agreed for the amount mentioned in the
earlier email referred above.
23. We have noted the contents of the email dated 24.08.2017, it
is of general nature, wherein claims for recovery of damages through
litigation has been made. However, subsequently an email dated
18.09.2017, GBP 10,000 have been agreed as a full and final
settlement by the corporate debtor. In this email, it has also been
mentioned that such offer was without any prejudice to the legal
rights and claims by the corporate debtor for damages due for loss of
business and reputation due to un-professional behaviour on the part
of operational creditor. It is now settled that the use of words
“without any prejudice” have got no adverse bearing on the
acknowledgement of debt. Thus, the use of these words in no
manner gives any respite to the corporate debtor.
24. Thereafter, we have also perused an email dated 15.02.2019,
which is a verbatim repetition of the email dated 24.08.2017. Hence,
in view of its mail dated 18.09.2017, it does not support the claim of
the corporate debtor that it had not accepted liability to pay any
amount. Further, this email is of general nature and the corporate
debtor in this email has not stated that the amount of liability
accepted by it in earlier emails dated 31.07.2017 or 18.09.2017
were not payable. Thereafter, correspondences with the counsel of
the operational creditor has also happened and finally the legal
counsel of the operational creditor vide its email dated 15.02.2019,
it has been informed that outstanding dues of GBP 78,296.31 were
required to be paid by the corporate debtor and failing to do so
would result into initiation of legal proceedings against the risk and
cost of the corporate debtor.
25. After carefully considering this chain of communication, we
have no hesitation in holding that at two stages, definite liability to
pay has been acknowledged and accepted by the corporate debtor.
The said liability in both the situations is more than the threshold
limit. Hence, having regards to various judicial decisions rendered by
the Hon'ble NCLAT that in case of dispute, if the undisputed liability
is more than the threshold limit, the application could be admitted”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. From the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, we find that the
Adjudicating Authority has held that there have been a number of
communication exchanged between the operational creditor and
corporate debtor which make it apparent that there “are certain strong
differences” between the two. In other words, the Adjudicating
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority has endorsed that there has been dispute between the two
parties on the claims amount. However, going ahead therefrom, the
Adjudicating Authority has taken a conscious decision to further find
out if any part of the liability on the part of the Corporate Debtor is
undisputed and if the amount exceeded the threshold limit to qualify
for admission of the Section 9 application.
13. We would however like to proceed by analyzing from the facts of
the case firstly, as to whether there was an admitted debt which was
due and payable and, if so, whether, that a default in payment had
been committed and thereafter find out whether the debt was disputed
or not so as to take a considered view on the legal tenability of the
impugned order. This analytical approach makes more sense being in
consonance with the test which has been laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P)
Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353 (‘Mobilox’ in short) while examining an
application under Section 9, the relevant excerpts of which are as
follows:—
“34. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, when examining an
application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:
(i) Whether there is an “operational debt” as defined exceeding
Rs. 1 lakh? (See Section 4 of the Act)
(ii) Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the
application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable
and has not yet been paid? and
(iii) Whether there is existence of a dispute between the parties or
the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding
filed before the receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid
operational debt in relation to such dispute?
If any of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would
have to be rejected. Apart from the above, the adjudicating authority
must follow the mandate of Section 9, as outlined above, and in
particular the mandate of Section 9(5) of the Act, and admit or
reject the application, as the case may be, depending upon the
factors mentioned in Section 9(5) of the Act.”
14. We note from the excerpts of the impugned order at Para 11
above that the Adjudicating Authority reached the conclusion that the
Corporate Debtor had admitted a debt of GBP 23544.13 on 31.03.2017
and GBP 10000 on 18.09.2017 and since a definite liability to pay has
been acknowledged and accepted by the Corporate Debtor and the
liability amount having crossed the threshold limit of Rs. 1 lakh,
Section 9 of IBC is attracted. It has also been held that in their email
dated 18.09.2017, the Corporate Debtor had agreed to GBP 10000 as a
full and final settlement and though this offer of settlement was made
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by the Corporate Debtor ‘without any prejudice’ to their legal rights and
claims for damages, it has no adverse bearing on the acknowledgement
of debt.
15. Interestingly, the impugned order also notes that with respect to
liability of payment, the Corporate Debtor in an email dated 24.08.2017
addressed to the Operational Creditor raised some issues of general
nature but held that these issues were not as if the Corporate Debtor
had not accepted the liability to pay any amount. Though the contents
of the e-mail dated 24.08.2017 as placed at page 334 of APB is self-
explanatory, for reasons of clarity, we think it prudent to reproduce the
contents of the said email. This e-mail is addressed to one Sarah of the
EE Ltd., Operational Creditor by one Mohan, the representative of the
Corporate Debtor is as reproduced below:—
“Hello,
Please be informed, currently we are in discussion with your client
for the mentioned O/s, due to several reasons as mentioned below.
We are in discussion to settle the dispute and are in discussions with
[email protected] & [email protected], and also mail
was sent looping you, attached for your reference.
We have already informed EE & they have accepted:
• Overcharge in invoicing.
• Agreed to providing credit for invoicing and outstanding
• Compensate us for disruption of service caused due to faulty
invoicing, non responsive attitude & not providing services on
time.
EE suspended service on all our lines without proper or prior
notice. This breach of contract has caused us significant loss of hard
earned clients, revenue and reputation for our Company & EE have
accepted it in written/on calls that the problem is at their end.
If EE continues to pursue any of the overcharges, we will be
required to pursue damages from EE for numerous breach of
contracts, culminating with the disconnection of services. This clearly
shows EE bad faith in its dealings with us, its wilful disregard of its
contractual obligations, and its desire to cause damage to us and our
customers. In light of all this, EE must immediately provide credit for
all wrong invoicing & settle credits for poor service. To this point it is
clear that despite our continued efforts, EE has not made any good
faith efforts to resolve our claims.
We find it very disingenuous that despite our disputes and
documented overcharges & EE acceptance of the same.
We would advise you to immediately refund all overcharges &
compensate us for disruption of services, or we will be required to
pursue recovery of damages through litigation.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Emphasis supplied)
16. A plain reading of the contents of the said e-mail dated
24.08.2017 indicates that the Corporate Debtor had disputed in
unambiguous terms the claim amount on grounds of numerous breach
of contract, faulty billing, overcharge in invoicing, etc. and had infact
even raised a counter claim. A letter reiterating the disputes on same
lines was issued again on 13.10.2017 as placed at Page 342-343 of APB
with the additional sentences “Please be aware your client will be liable
for extortion, breach of trust & compensation for fraudulent
invoicing/loss of business. This email is without any prejudice to our
legal rights.” This validates the fact that both parties were aware of the
invoice disputes and that counterclaims were made by the Corporate
Debtor by way of demanding compensation for service disruption and
damages for business loss. These two emails of 24.08.2017 and
13.10.2017 clearly indicate that there was serious ongoing dispute
surrounding the liability amount which has erroneously not been taken
into reckoning by the Adjudicating Authority.
17. Further, that the Corporate Debtor had not admitted definite
liability has infact been acknowledged by the Operational Creditor
themselves as is evident from an email sent by the Operational Creditor
to the Corporate Debtor on 23.03.2017 seeking confirmation as to when
payment will be received for “any undisputed amount”. The e-mail as
placed at page 281 of APB is as reproduced below:—
Hi Mohan,
I hope you are well?
A couple of things from me if I may,
• Can you confirm when payment will be received for any
undisputed amount?
• When would you be free to discuss the future trading options in
detail?
Kind regards,
Steven
(Emphasis supplied)
We also find emails dated 24.03.2017 and 30.03.2017 as placed at
page 280 of the APB where the Corporate Debtor had sought updated
statement of accounts including adjustment of credits and there is no
admission of any definite liability on their part.
18. More importantly, the provision under Section 8(2)(a) of IBC
makes it clear that the Corporate Debtor has to bring to the Operational
Creditor the fact of the existence of a dispute within ten days of the
receipt of the demand notice. We find that the Corporate Debtor in its
reply on 29.06.2018 to the Section 8 notice dated 21.06.2018 has
denied the claim raised by the Operational Creditor on the grounds that
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

they are not legally due or payable besides making a mention of

ongoing and unresolved disputes related to the debt amount that has
been claimed. It will be useful to extract the reply sent by the
Corporate Debtor to Section 8 Notice placed at page 345 of APB:
“1. That the claim of EE Ltd., Trident Place, Mosquito way, Harsfield,
Hertfordshire, AL 109 BW, UK are false and fraudulent and totally
lacking in details of the services rendered.
2. That they have already admitted wrong billing and as such
there is no settled amount payable to them.
3. That there is no adjudicated amount due to them.
4. That we are advised that such fraudulent claims which have not
been adjudicated do not come in the scope of proceedings under
THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016.
5. That due to summer holidays in the court our counsel is not
available and a detailed reply by him will follow.
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, in the background of these communications/correspondences,
we are of the considered view that present is not a case where the
Corporate Debtor has unconditionally admitted to any outstanding
amount.
19. We now come down to examine whether mention was made of
any preexisting dispute by the Appellant/Corporate Debtor prior to or
during the stage of notice under Section 8 of the IBC or whether there
was any dispute on the date of filing the application by the Operational
Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC.
20. From the material of record, we find that one of the major areas
of dispute was billing discrepancies arising out of inflated invoices
which infact has been admitted by both parties. The Learned Counsel
for Appellant has submitted that on 05.07.2016, the Corporate Creditor
had sent an email to the Operational Debtor mentioning that 13000
GBP was receivable against inflated invoices raised by the Operational
Creditor as placed at Page 72 of the APB. It is also seen from page 75-
76 of the APB that vide email dated 20.07.2016 the Operational
Creditor had not only agreed to the calculations made by the Corporate
Debtor regarding inflated invoices but also agreed to re-calculate the
credit payable to the Corporate Debtor. Similarly, another
communication on billing discrepancy on data bundle from May-July
2016 had also been sent on 03.08.2016 by the Corporate Debtor to the
Operational Creditor as placed at Page 77 of the APB. The ongoing
credit issues with the Operational Creditor and wrong charging of tariffs
had persisted even in subsequent months. Infact CDR disputes for the
period as early as January 2016 had also been raised on 10.03.2016 as
placed at page 109 of APB. We also note that on 09.05.2016, the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corporate Debtor took up the matter with the senior management of

the Operational Creditor for early settlement of disputes relating to
credits raised as placed at page 117 and 118 of APB and alongside
raised issues on back-dating discounts applied on Data Bundles as well
as applicability of 5 MB Rest of World Cap on their accounts. We also
cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporate Debtor had sent emails
to the Operational Creditor on 26.08.2016, 10.10.2016 and 24.10.2016
(as respectively placed at pages 168, 180 and 199 of APB) seeking a
meeting with the Operational Creditor in UK to discuss the ongoing
inflated invoice and to reconcile and settle these discrepancies. It is
also the Appellant's case that the dispute between them and
Respondent No. 1 was on several counts and both parties were engaged
in regular discussions with each other on this count. Moreover, the fact
that these disputes had an early start is also noted from page 69 of APB
wherein the Corporate Debtor has sent a communication on 07.07.2015
to the Operational Creditor that they have hit a roadblock since the Sim
cards given to them were not working and affecting their commitments
of getting revenue. Even the issue of non-working of data services was
raised on 14.10.2016.
21. We find that the above instances of dispute were not isolated in
nature and that they cogently establish that billing disputes between
the two parties existed much before the issue of Section 8 notice and
thus we find that there is sufficient force in the contention of the
Appellant that the claims are genuinely disputed.
22. As to whether a dispute is a pre-existing dispute, the Learned
Counsel for Appellant has correctly relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox supra in support of his contention. In
this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting Sections 8
and 9 of IBC lays down the guiding principle that the dispute must
exist before the receipt of the demand notice or issue of invoice. It may
be useful to notice the relevant part of the judgment as reproduced
below:
“51. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has
filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating
authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if
notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or
there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that
such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the
“existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration
proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties.
Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is
whether there is a plausible contention which requires further
investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal
argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.”
23. If we apply the above-cited test laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the
defence which was raised by the Corporate Debtor in its reply to
Demand Notice as well as detailed reply filed in Section 9 Application
cannot be said to be moonshine. The Appellants case is that there is
voluminous correspondence exchanged between the Corporate Debtor
and the Operational Creditor over a long period of time which clearly
establishes that there was real pre-existing dispute. That preexisting
dispute was very much there is amply supported by material on the
record. We do not wish to go into each and every correspondence as it
is not the remit of IBC to investigate all related contractual disputes
and look into their merits as long as it suffices that a plausible defence
has been raised as has been done in the present case. In the present
factual matrix, the defence raised by the Corporate Debtor cannot be
held to be moonshine, spurious, hypothetical or illusory. And for such
disputed amounts, Section 9 proceeding under IBC cannot be initiated
at the instance of the Operational Creditor.
24. What also heavily weighs on our mind is that both the objective
of the IBC and the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is that the provisions of IBC cannot be turned into a
debt recovery proceedings. Reliance has also been placed by the
Appellant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S. Engineers
v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1385
which has held that:
“31. The NCLT, exercising powers under Section 7 or Section 9 of
IBC, is not a debt collection forum. The IBC tackles and/or deals with
insolvency and bankruptcy. It is not the object of the IBC that CIRP
should be initiated to penalize solvent companies for nonpayment of
disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor.”
Where operational creditor seeks to initiate insolvency process
against a Corporate Debtor, it can only be done in clear cases where no
real dispute exists between the two which however is not so borne out
by the facts of the present case. We are of the considered opinion that
the Adjudicating Authority committed serious error in admitting Section
9 application in the facts of the present case.
25. With the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that
the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously admitted the application
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Monday, May 27, 2024
Printed For: Adveer Singh Narang, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

under Section 9 of the IBC. We therefore set aside the impugned order.
The orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority initiating CIRP against
the Corporate Debtor and appointing Interim Resolution Professional
and all other orders pursuant to impugned order are declared illegal
and set aside. The Corporate Debtor company is released from the
rigours of CIRP and is allowed to function independently through its
board of directors with immediate effect. The appeal is allowed with the
aforesaid observations. No order as to costs.
———
† Principal Bench, New Delhi

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.