Vertex Customer Management Pvt. Ltd vs Abhibus Services (India) Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No.230 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a corporate debtor has raised a dispute concerning the quality of the services supplied, and that dispute was raised before the operational creditor issued its demand notice under section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, an application under section 9 of the Code cannot be admitted. The Appellate Tribunal will not examine a dispute concerning the validity of a termination of contract in an appeal arising from an application under section 9, since such a question falls outside the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: M/s Vertex Customer Management India Pvt. Ltd. .....Appellant Vs. M/s Abhibus Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent
Present : For Appellant: Attendance not marked
O R D E R
26.02.2020 - Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that though the
order was pronounced on 05.11.2019, it was communicated to 'Operational
Creditor' only on 06.01.2020. If the limitation period is counted from the date
of communication of the Impugned Order, the appeal has been filed within the
period of limitation. However, to be on safer side, the Appellant has filed an
application for Condonation of Delay.
2. In the given circumstances, we allow condonation of delay if any, in
preferring this Appeal. I.A. No. 607 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of.
....contd.
2
3. The application filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating
Authority u/s 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('I&B' Code, for
short) alleging default in respect of an amount of Rs. 1,83,87,559/- has been
rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by virtue of Impugned Order dated
05.11.2019 on the ground that a dispute was raised by the 'Corporate
Debtor' prior to issuance of Demand Notice with regard to quality of service
as the 'Corporate Debtor' was not satisfied with the Customer Care Service
extended to the customers of 'Corporate Debtor.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Since it is not in
Controversy that the dispute with regard to quality of service was raised
prior to issuance of Demand Notice, it is futile on the part of Learned
Counsel for Appellant to contend that the 'Termination Notice' was bad. This
is notwithstanding the fact that no dispute has been raised as regards the
'Termination Notice' before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.
5. After going through the record, we are satisfied that the dispute in
regard to quality of service has been raised prior to issuance of Demand
Notice. It is not within the domain of 'NCLAT' or 'NCLT' to look into the
dispute in regard to termination which clearly falls outside its Province.
Once, the dispute has been raised with regard to quality of service prior to
issuance of Demand Notice u/s 8(1) of the 'I&B' Code, the application u/s 9
of the 'I&B' Code could not be admitted. ....contd. 3
6. We find no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the Appellant
shall be at liberty to seek legal remedy before the proper Forum if so advised.
There shall be no order as to costs.
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
[V.P. Singh] Member (Technical)
[Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No.230 of 2020
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