Inqnest Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Koovs Marketing Consulting Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 317 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, an operational creditor's application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process is liable to be rejected where, on the record before the Adjudicating Authority, there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties as on the date of the demand notice under Section 8, and the existence of such a dispute as to the agreed rates or the amount payable is itself disputed by the corporate debtor on the material placed before it. The Adjudicating Authority, in deciding whether a pre-existing dispute exists, is not required or entitled to go into the question whether a document relied upon by the corporate debtor to establish the dispute (here, an e-mail disputing the rates charged) is genuine or spurious; the existence of a pre-existing dispute is to be determined on the record as it stands, and the genuineness of the disputing document is a matter not to be decided within the Section 9 proceeding.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Inqnest Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
Koovs Marketing Consulting Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. K.C. Aggarwal, Advocate.
For Respondent: - None.
O R D E R
01.04.2019─ Heard counsel for the Appellant. Perused record.
According to the Appellant, the Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor' availed services of the Appellant after sharing the rate card of rates already "negotiated and agreed". It is further stated that the Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor' having already availed all the services later failed to make the payments.
It is stated that the Appellant had sent Statutory Notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) on 3rd April, 2018. The Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor' did not comply with the notice and hence Section 9 proceeding was filed but the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh by impugned order dated 20th February, 2019 rejected the application on the ground that there was a pre-existing dispute.
Contd/-.............
-2- Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the e-mail dated 3rd January, 2018 relied on by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order is a spurious e-mail which was sent by the Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor'. If such e-mail sent after availing the services are to be entertained, the object of the proceeding under the 'I&B Code' would be defeated.
Going through the material on the record and the impugned order and considering the e-mail dated 3rd January, 2018 which is on record, and which was sent before Notice dated 3rd April, 2018, we agree with the Adjudicating Authority that there was an existing dispute when notice under Section 8 of the 'I&B Code' was sent. The 'Corporate Debtor' appears to have disputed the rates charged calling them exorbitant and irrational. Thus, there were agreed rates or not was itself disputed. The Adjudicating Authority cannot go into the question raised that the e-mail was spurious or otherwise. We do not find defect in the impugned order.
We do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is rejected without admitting.
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial)
Ar/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 317 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