Yusuf Malubhaiwala Vs Anuj Maheshwari (NCLAT Delhi)
The Operational Creditor, a sole proprietorship concern engaged in trading and supplying iron and steel materials, claimed operational debt of Rs.2,32,98,535/-, comprising Rs.1,56,44,009/- towards supplies and Rs.76,54,526/- towards interest. The principal issue was whether there was a genuine pre-existing dispute before the Section 8 Demand Notice dated 17.10.2019.
The Corporate Debtor claimed that the entire liability had been discharged through cash payments evidenced by three cash receipts and relied upon police complaints dated 08.08.2019 and 09.08.2019, subsequent civil proceedings and anticipatory bail proceedings as evidence of commercial disputes. NCLAT found that the cash-payment defence lacked plausibility because the receipts were not disclosed in the police complaints or in the reply dated 26.10.2019 to the Demand Notice and surfaced only subsequently in the reply to the Section 9 application.
The Tribunal declined to adjudicate whether the receipts were forged, considering that issue beyond its summary jurisdiction, but held that it could examine their plausibility for determining the existence of a genuine dispute. The police complaints, though chronologically preceding the Demand Notice, did not have a clear nexus with the operational debt and contained inconsistent versions concerning the amounts allegedly payable. The subsequent civil suit and anticipatory bail proceedings could not establish a pre-existing dispute because they arose after the statutory Demand Notice.
