Romi Datta Vs Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Adjudicating Authority didn’t commit any error in holding that all requisite conditions necessary to trigger CIRP under Section 9 stood fulfilled and that the grounds of pre-existing disputes did not rest on genuine foundations and it could not be rejected on ground of raising a false claim of pre existing dispute.
Held: Appellant filed an appeal under Section 61 of IBC arising out of the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Adjudicating Authority had admitted section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor and admitted the Corporate Debtor into the rigors of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”). Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal had been filed by the shareholder of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor entered into Service Agreement with Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Operational Creditor for the purpose of handling, storage, maintenance, administration, distribution and arrangement of the goods of the Corporate Debtor kept in the warehouses at various locations within the country. The Operational Creditor sent e-mails to the Corporate Debtor regarding outstanding amounts due and payable by the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor, claiming that the outstanding amount remained unpaid issued a Demand Notice on 25.02.2020 under Section 8 of the IBC to the Corporate Debtor demanding payment of Rs 4.02 Cr including interest. The Corporate Debtor sent a Notice of Dispute denying their liability besides claiming that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties. The Operational Creditor filed a Section 9 application against the Corporate Debtor claiming an amount of Rs 1.75 Cr as due and payable by the Corporate Debtor including interest @18% per annum. Appellant contended that the pre-existing disputes stem from the Operational Creditor acting in complete contravention of the terms of the Service Agreement much prior to issue of Section 8 demand notice. Corporate Debtor had denied the outstanding amount besides notifying the Operational Creditor about the pre-existing dispute. Per contra, the respondents submitted that the ground of pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor was simply a ruse to escape their liability of paying the debt owed by them to the Operational Creditor. That the Corporate Debtor had clearly acknowledged their debt in which they had requested further time to make payments as they were facing financial difficulty. It was also mentioned that the Corporate Debtor had raised allegations against them of having misappropriated goods and illegally sold the stocks of the Corporate Debtor as an after-thought only after they received various e-mails from the Operational Creditor calling upon them to pay the outstanding dues. Adjudicating Authority after noting the admissions made by the Corporate Debtor in a letter dated 22.04.2015 had observed that the same amount to be a clear acknowledgment of debt of Rs 1.76 cr being due and payable. It was observed that no error was committed by Adjudicating Authority in coming to the conclusion that in fact there existed debt and default was committed in respect of the debt. It was held that Adjudicating Authority had considered the entire gamut of facts including the fact that the spectre of litigations confronting the Corporate Debtor as well as alleged criminal breach of trust by the Operational Creditor for contravention of service agreement and misappropriation of goods as reasons cited by the Corporate Debtor for non-payment of the operational debt. Adjudicating Authority had mulled at length on the debit entries in the two ledgers of the Corporate Debtor before coming to the conclusion that the ledger entries prima-facie did not inspire their confidence. Coming to analysis and findings, Adjudicating Authority found that that facts on record speak loud and clear that the Corporate Debtor had all along admitted that it owed an operational debt to the Operational Creditor and that it was endeavoring to clear the dues which amount was in excess of the threshold limit. The contents of the letter dated 22.04.20 15 and email dated 07.03.20 16 make it amply clear that the Corporate Debtor had admitted the operational debt. The aforementioned admissions by the Corporate Debtor amounts to be a clear acknowledgment of debt being due and payable. There was no material which had been placed on record by Corporate Debtor to show that they had categorically rejected the outstanding dues claimed by the Operational Creditor prior to issue of demand notice. When the operational debt had already arisen and become due and invoices raised were not specifically disputed, there was nothing on record which detracts from the operational debt having become due and payable. Adjudicating Authority therefore did not appear to have committed any error in holding that all requisite conditions necessary to trigger CIRP under Section 9 stands fulfilled and that the grounds of pre-existing disputes did not rest on genuine foundations.
