Metro Tyres Limited Vs Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd (NCLT Delhi)
Conclusion: Since the Corporate Debtor had not been able to raise a plausible contention regarding the pre-existence of “dispute” between the parties, therefore, the present petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 ought to be admitted.
Held: The Operational Creditor-Metro Tyres limited was engaged in the business of manufacturing of rubber products. The Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s. Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the field of electric mobility solutions. The Company offered electric two wheelers. The Corporate Debtor approached the Operational Creditor for the purchase of Cycle tyres and tubes on the basis of reputation of the Operational Creditor. Pursuant to the request of the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor and in lieu of the same various invoices were raised by the Operational Creditor upon Corporate Debtor amounting to a sum of Rs. 3,69,53,071/ – (Rupees Three Crore Sixty-Nine Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand and Seventy-One only). Out of which Rs. 4,27,698/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight only) were received by the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor. As per the said Statement of Accounts, there was an outstanding amount of Rs 1,85,25,373/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Five Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy-Three only) which was due and payable by the Corporate Debtor as on 31.03.2024. The Operational Creditor, on various occasions, had requested the Corporate Debtor for payment of the pending amount in respect to the abovementioned invoices. However, the Corporate Debtor sent an email approximately after nine months from the last invoice, on the basis of field feedback received by the Corporate Debtor, wherein Corporate Debtor took a moonshine defense and stated that in 90/90×10 tyre and 90/90×12 tyre supplied by Corporate Debtor, there was issue of Tread Separation, Bubbles and Air Leakage. The Corporate Debtor had never raised any quality issue or any sort of dispute in any manner whatsoever from their end in terms of their own inspection policy and the same was evident from the Balance Confirmation Letter certified through Corporate Debtor’s Manager Accounts confirming the Balance Confirmation as on 31.03.2023. The Corporate Debtor contended that Operational creditor hurriedly issued a Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Code, for an alleged amount of Rs. 3,65,25,373/- despite the fact that there were pre-existing disputes vis-a-vis the quality of the goods supplied as well as non-reconciliation of the accounts. It was held that no documentation or records had been submitted by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor to support the payment of Rs. 5,00,000 to the Operational Creditor. As a result, it would not be covered by an existing dispute. Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor had not been able to raise a plausible contention regarding the pre-existence of “dispute” between the parties. Hence, the present petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 ought to be admitted.
