Avalon Sports And Media vs Intex Technologies India Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an operational creditor's Section 9 application is met with documents showing a pre-existing dispute regarding the claim, the Adjudicating Authority is entitled to reject the application without examining the merits of the claim, and the existence of such a dispute is itself sufficient ground for rejection.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Avalon Sports and Media ...Appellant
Versus
Intex Technologies India Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhisek Rai, Mr. Kunal Kohli and Mr. Vasudev Vishwkarma, Advocates
ORDER
23.10.2019 The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the
'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code') for initiation
of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against 'Intex Technologies India
Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, Bench - VI, New Delhi by an Impugned order dated 1th September,
2019 having rejected the Application, present Appeal has been preferred. The
record shows that the Appellant issued Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the
'I&B Code'. The 'Corporate Debtor' replied on 25th January, 2019 pointing out
that there is 'pre-existence of dispute' of the alleged claim and demanded
payment of Rs.47,68,500/- for the loss of Interest due to delay in payments by
'Oxigen' along with commission already paid to the Appellant.
The Adjudicating Authority noticed that the e-mails were exchanged
between the parties on 13th February, 2018, 9th October, 2018 and 27th
November, 2018. In the e-mail dated 3rd December, 2018 the 'Corporate Debtor'
disputed the claim on the ground that the payment of the commission is with -2-
the 'terms & conditions' of the Agreement reached between the Appellant and
the 'Corporate Debtor' and the refund sought of the amount has already been
paid.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is 'Breach of
Agreement'. He further submits that the frivolous disputes were raised and if
there is any 'Breach of Agreement' which was raised between the 'Corporate
Debtor' and the third party and not with the Appellant, those are the 'Issues'
which cannot be decided by an Adjudicating Authority in a petition under
Section 9 of the 'I&B Code'.
For the said reason, if documents have been placed showing that there is
a 'pre-existence of dispute' with regard to the alleged claim, the Adjudicating
Authority without going into the merit of the case, had rightly rejected the
application under Section 9 on the ground that there is 'pre-existence of dispute'.
We find no merit in this Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) /ns/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2019
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free