Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Citicare Super Speciality Hospital vs Vighnaharta Health Visionaries Pvt. ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal18 October 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be entertained where there exists a pre-existing dispute between the parties as to the amount claimed, including where the operational creditor's claimed dues are subject to an agreed adjustment against sums the operational creditor holds or has received from the corporate debtor, and the parties have contemplated settlement of that adjustment through arbitration; the existence of such a dispute bars admission of the application even if some dues are admitted.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 414 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Citicare Super Specialty Hospital ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Vighnaharta Health Visionaries Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Pradeep K. Mittal and Ms. Shruti Choudhary, Advocates.

For Respondent: - Mr. Rohit Rathi, Advocate.

O R D E R

18.10.2019─ The Appellant- 'M/s. Citicare Super Specialty

Hospital'- ('Operational Creditor') filed an application under Section 9 of

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) for

initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against 'M/s.

Vighnaharta Health Visionaries Pvt. Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor'). It having

been rejected by the impugned order dated 11th March, 2019 passed by

the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai

Bench, Mumbai, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent

has admitted the rent of certain periods to be due and that other dues

have not been paid and they are also reflected in the Books of Accounts. 2

3. On the other hand, according to learned counsel for the

Respondent, there is an 'existence of dispute'.

4. From the record, we find that the Demand Notice was issued by the

Appellant on 28th February, 2018. Prior to the issuance of the Demand

Notice, the Respondent sent e-mail to the Appellant on 22nd February,

2018, which is as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 414 of 2019 3

5. From the aforesaid e-mail, we find that both the parties in the

meeting held on 31st March, 2017 have mutually agreed that the

remaining rent will be adjusted against Rs.40 lacs deposited with the

Appellant and some other dues like electricity bill etc. to be adjusted

which was paid by the 'Corporate Debtor'. It further stated that they have

discussed for a Settlement through an Arbitrator.

6. In view of the aforesaid fact, even if it is argued that there are

admitted dues, the application under Section 9 cannot be entertained,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 414 of 2019 4

there being an existence of dispute relating to amount which is to be

adjusted from the amount payable by the Appellant with the Respondent.

In absence of any merit, the appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No

costs.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 414 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