Skip to main content

Application u/s 9 of IBC for initiating CIRP liable to be rejected if a genuine dispute exists: Supreme Court

Application-u/s-9-of-IBC-for-initiating-CIRP-liable-to-be-rejected-if-a-genuine-dispute-exists-Supreme-Court

By - Hiranmayi Gowravajhula*

The Supreme court on Tuesday held that if a disagreement genuinely exists in reality and is "not spurious, hypothetical, illusory or misconceived", the adjudicating authority must reject an application seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 

The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai allowed the appeal against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) judgement, which had set aside the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) order denying Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited’s application for initiating CIRP against Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. 

In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Kay Bouvet argued that the information on record, especially the demand notice and reply thereunder, plainly demonstrated the “presence of dispute”, and that the NCLT had correctly declined the petition. 

Also Read - Delhi High Court grants bail to RJD MP Amrendra Dhari Singh on merits as well as on medical grounds.

On the contrary, the Overseas Infrastructure submitted that Kay Bouvet had admitted to receiving the amount from Overseas Infrastructure and that once a party admits to having a claim, the claim falls under the definition of “Operational Debt” as defined under subsection (21) of Section 5 of the IBC, allowing the party to whom admission is made to file proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC as an “Operational Creditor”. 

While addressing the aforementioned contentions raised by the parties, the court observed that on the emergence of a default, an “Operational Creditor” is obliged to transmit a “Demand Notice” of an unpaid “Operational Debt” or a copy of an invoice requesting payment of the amount involved in the default to the “Corporate Debtor” in such form and manner as may be stipulated. 

Also Read - Application under O.VI R.17 of CPC should be considered on merits before exercising power under O.XII R.6 of CPC: Delhi High Court

According to the bench, the "Corporate Debtor" must either bring the "presence of a disagreement" to the attention of the “Operational Creditor” within 10 days of receiving such "Demand Notice" or copy of invoice, or make payment of outstanding “Operational Debt” in the manner provided.

The bench referred to the judgment in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, in which the phrases “presence”, “genuine disagreement”, and “legitimate claim”, among others, were construed. The bench noted that one of the purposes of the IBC relating to operational debts is to ensure that the amount of such debts, which is usually less than that of financial debts, does not enable operational creditors to place the corporate debtor into the insolvency resolution process prematurely or to initiate the process for purely speculative reasons. 

Also Read - Supreme Court expresses disappointment over conduct of CBI on complaints from judges about threats

The court finally concluded that it is obvious that if a notification has been received by the “Operational Creditor” or if there is a record of disagreement in the information utility, the adjudicating body must reject the application under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the IBC.

The bench then went on to review the documents to see if Kay Bouvet’s assertion about the “presence of disagreement” was false, illusory, or not supported by facts, and concluded that it was not. 

Also Read - Parliament passes the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2021; seeks to dissolve certain appellate tribunals

“In these circumstances, we find that NCLT had rightly rejected the application of Overseas after finding that there existed a dispute between Kay Bouvet and Overseas and as such, an order under Section 9 of the IBC would not have been passed. We find that NCLAT has patently misinterpreted the factual as well as legal position and erred in reversing the order of NCLT and directing admission of Section 9 petition”, the bench held.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Hiranmayi Gowravajhula is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more