Yogendra Yasupal vs M/S. Jigsaw Solutions & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 222 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A debt-based application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be defeated by a dispute that is first raised after the operational creditor's application is filed; the existence of a dispute is assessed by reference to whether the corporate debtor has raised a specific objection in writing, before the notice is issued, as to the quality of the services rendered or the amount claimed. Observations made by a court, or statements made in a communication by the operational creditor, concerning an individual officer do not by themselves constitute an existence of dispute between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor in respect of the operational debt.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Yogendra Yasupal ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Jigsaw Solutions & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, Mr. Anish R. Shah and Mr. K.R. Samratt, Advocates.
For Respondents: - Mr. Karthigeyan Srinivasan, Advocate.
ORDER
16.10.2017- 1st Respondent- 'Operational Creditor' filed application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'I&B Code') against 2nd Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor'. The application having been admitted by impugned order dated 15th September, 2017 passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench, Chennai in Company Petition No. 559/(IB)/CB/2017, and order of moratorium having been passed with further orders in terms of the 'I&B Code', this present appeal has been filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is an 'existence of dispute' and, therefore, the application under Section 9 of the 'I&B Code' was not maintainable. He relied on one or other documents including the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in an Anticipatory Bail Petition preferred by the appellant/director (shareholder) to suggest that there is a 'dispute in existence'.
-2- 3. From the enclosure attached to the appeal, we find that the document preferred by 'Operational Creditor' was complete. In so far dispute is concerned, any observations with regard to individual officer if made by a court of law or in a communication made by the 'Operational Creditor', the same cannot be treated to be an 'existence of dispute'. As we find that there is no specific objection made by the 'Corporate Debtor' in writing, raising any dispute with regard to the quality of services as claimed to have been rendered by the Respondents-'Operational Creditors', no dispute can be raised at the stage of submitting reply under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 'I&B Code'. In this regard one may rely on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's in "Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd v. Kirusa Software Private Ltd, (2017) SCC OnLine SC 1154".
4. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) (Balvinder Singh) Member (Judicial) Member(Technical)
Ar/uk
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