Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd. Supreme Court [FCS Deepak P. Singh]



Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd. SUPREME COURT Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017 Dated: 21/09/2017

 

THE APEX COURT – in this case the Hon’ble Apex Court explained term “ Existence of Dispute” and used under provisions of Section 8 of the IBC,2016 related to “ Operational Debt”.

BRIEF FACTS:

  1. The present appeal raises questions as to the triggering of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 when it comes to operational debts owed to operational creditors.
  1. The appellant was engaged by Star TV for conducting tele-voting for the “Nach Baliye” program on Star TV.
  1. The appellant in turn subcontracted the work to the respondent.
  1. The respondent provided the requisite services and raised monthly invoices and also followed up with the appellant for payment of pending invoices. It is also important to note that a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) was executed between the parties.
  1. More than a month after execution of the aforesaid agreement, the appellant, wrote to the respondent that they were withholding payments against invoices raised by the respondent, as the respondent had disclosed on their webpage that they had worked for the “Nach Baliye” program run by Star TV, and had thus breached the NDA.
  1. Respondent filed an application with the NCLT under Sections 8 and 9 of the new Code stating that an operational debt of Rs.20,08,202.55 was owed by the Appellant.
  1. NCLT dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant had disputed the claim of debt alleged by the respondent.
  1. On appeal NCALT remanded the case back to NCLT.
  1. Appellant challenged the order of the NCALT before the Supreme Court.
OBSERVATIONS AND DECISION OF SUPREME COURT

  1. The adjudicating authority, when examining an application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:
  1. Whether there is an “operational debt” as defined exceeding Rs.1 lakh? (See Section 4 of the Act);

  2. Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid? and

  3. Whether there is existence of a dispute between the parties or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid operational debt in relation to such dispute?

  1. If any one of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would have to be rejected.
  1. Apart from the above, the adjudicating authority must follow the mandate of Section 9, as outlined above, and in particular the mandate of Section 9(5) of the Act, and admit or reject the application, as the case may be, depending upon the factors mentioned in Section 9(5) of the Act.
  1. It is now important to construe Section 8 of the Code. The operational creditors are those creditors to whom an operational debt is owed, and an operational debt, in turn, means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services, including employment, or a debt in respect of repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Government or to a local authority.
  1. This has to be contrasted with financial debts that may be owed to financial creditors, which was the subject matter of the judgment delivered by this Court on 31.8.2017 in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos.8337-8338 of 2017). In this judgment, we had held that the adjudicating authority under Section 7 of the Code has to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or on the basis of evidence furnished by the financial creditor within 14 days. The corporate debtor is entitled to point out to the adjudicating authority that a default has not occurred; in the sense that a debt, which may also include a disputed claim, is not due i.e. it is not payable in law or in fact.
  1. This Court then went on to state:
“29. The scheme of Section 7 stands in contrast with the scheme under Section 8 where an operational creditor is, on the occurrence of a default, to first deliver a demand notice of the unpaid debt to the operational debtor in the manner provided in Section 8(1) of the Code. Under Section 8(2), the corporate debtor can, within a period of 10 days of receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1), bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceedings, which is pre-existing – i.e. before such notice or invoice was received by the corporate debtor. The moment there is existence of such a dispute, the operational creditor gets out of the clutches of the Code.”

  1. It is, thus, clear that so far as an operational creditor is concerned, a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt or copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved must be delivered in the prescribed form. The corporate debtor is then given a period of 10 days from the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice to bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute, if any.
  1. We have also seen the notes on clauses annexed to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill of 2015, in which “the existence of a dispute” alone is mentioned. Even otherwise, the word “and” occurring in Section 8(2)(a) must be read as “or” keeping in mind the legislative intent and the fact that an anomalous situation would arise if it is not read as “or”. If read as “and”, disputes would only stave off the bankruptcy process if they are already pending in a suit or arbitration proceedings and not otherwise. This would lead to great hardship; in that a dispute may arise a few days before triggering of the insolvency process, in which case, though a dispute may exist, there is no time to approach either an arbitral tribunal or a court. Further, given the fact that long limitation periods are allowed, where disputes may arise and do not reach an arbitral tribunal or a court for upto three years, such persons would be outside the purview of Section 8(2) leading to bankruptcy proceedings commencing against them. Such an anomaly cannot possibly have been intended by the legislature nor has it so been intended.
  1. We have also seen that one of the objects of the Code qua operational debts is to ensure that the amount of such debts, which is usually smaller than that of financial debts, does not enable operational creditors to put the corporate debtor into the insolvency resolution process prematurely or initiate the process for extraneous considerations. It is for this reason that it is enough that a dispute exists between the parties. It is settled law that the expression “and” may be read as “or” in order to further the object of the statute and/or to avoid an anomalous situation.
  1. This being the case, is it not open to the adjudicating authority to then go into whether a dispute does or does not exist?
It is important to notice that Section 255 read with the Eleventh Schedule of the Code has amended Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 so that a company being unable to pay its debts is no longer a ground for winding up a company. The old law contained in Madhusudan (supra) has, therefore, disappeared with the disappearance of this ground in Section 271 of the Companies Act.
  1. We have already noticed that in the first Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill, 2015 that was annexed to the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee Report,
Section 5(4) defined “dispute” as meaning a “bona fide suit or arbitration proceedings…” In its present avatar, Section 5(6) excludes the expression “bona fide” which is of significance. Therefore, it is difficult to import the expression “bona fide” into Section 8(2)(a) in order to judge whether a dispute exists or not.
 
It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties.

  1. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.
  1. Going by the aforesaid test of “existence of a dispute”, it is clear that without going into the merits of the dispute, the appellant has raised a plausible contention requiring further investigation which is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of facts unsupported by evidence. The defence is not spurious, mere bluster, plainly frivolous or vexatious. A dispute does truly exist in fact between the parties, which may or may not ultimately succeed, and the Appellate Tribunal was wholly incorrect in characterizing the defence as vague, got-up and motivated to evade liability.
  1. The Appeal Allowed.
CONCLUSION:  while explaining the term “ existence of a dispute” the Apex Court held that dispute should not be merely a feeble legal argument or assertion of facts without any supporting evidence. Dispute must be examined on merits and a plausible contention that it involved further investigation. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.


DISCLAIMER:
 

The case law presented here is only for sharing information and knowledge with the readers. The views are personal and same should not be considered as professional advice. In case of necessity do consult with professionals for more understanding and clarity on subject matter.

Footnotes:

SECTION 8 OF IBC, 2016 -INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION BY OPERATIONAL CREDITOR

(1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debtor copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed.

(2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the operational creditor—

(a) existence of a dispute , and record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute;

(b) the payment of unpaid operational debt—

(i) by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor; or

(ii) by sending an attested copy of record that the operational creditor has encashed a cheque issued by the corporate debtor.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a “demand notice” means a notice served by an operational creditor to the corporate debtor demanding payment of the operational debt in respect of which the default has occurred.

 

IBC SECTION 9-APPLICATION FOR INITIATION OF CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS BY OPERATIONAL CREDITOR.

EFFECTIVE FROM 01.12.2016 AND FONT IN BLUE IS EFFECTIVE FROM 06.06.2018

(1) After the expiry of the period of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment under sub-section (1) of section 8, if the operational creditor does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of section 8, the operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process.

(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.

(3) The operational creditor shall, along with the application furnish—

(a) a copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor;

(b) an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt;

(c) a copy of the certificate from the financial institutions maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt  by the corporate debtor, if available; and

(d) a copy of any record with information utility confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, if available; and

(e) any other proof confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor or such other information, as may be prescribed.

(4) An operational creditor initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process under this section, may propose a resolution professional to act as an interim resolution professional.

(5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), by an order—

(i) admit the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor if,—

(a) the application made under sub-section (2) is complete;

(b) there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt;

(c) the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor;

(d) no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility; and

(e) there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed under sub-section (4), if any.

(ii) reject the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, if—

(a) the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete;

(b) there has been  payment of the unpaid operational debt;

(c) the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor;

(d) notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility; or

(e) any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional:

Provided that Adjudicating Authority, shall before rejecting an application under subclause (a) of clause (ii) give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of the date of receipt of such notice from the adjudicating Authority.

(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (5) of this section.

Source: https://ca2013.com/section-9-application-initiation-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-operational-creditor/

Advertise With Us

Click here to read the disclaimer


Write a Comment