Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. vs Essline Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

“2.

At the outset, we completely brush aside all the allegations made against us. It is submitted that the aforesaid claim made is false and frivolous. We have been repeatedly communicating over emails and telecom that there is no due whatsoever from us to you

3.

Even the account confirmations sent by you clearly states that there is no sum due whatsoever from us. In fact we were in a state of shock and surprise to receive the captioned notice from your office demanding an alleged sum of Rs. 7,41,39,165/-.

4.

We have been into business relations since a long time and have been reconciling our accounts from time to time. The account reconciliation clearly shows that no sum is due from us to you.

5.

Further the account statement sent by you along with the notice is ambiguous and not clear about the contents. Also the notice does not contain all the supporting documents referred by you in the demand notice.”

“Dated: 04/10/2018

To, M/s. Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. 7, Kamila Executive Park, Off. Andheri Kuria Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.

Sub.: Adjustment of outstanding balance in your account with M/s. BTM Exports Lad.

Kind Attn.: Mr. Prathamesh Sontakke

Dear Sir,

We have been requested by M/s BTM Exports Ltd. to give them credit of Rs. 3,99,47,076.92 (Rs. Three Crore Ninty Nine Lac Fourty Seven Thousand Seventy Six and Paise Ninty Two Only) by debiting the aforesaid amount to your account which is receivable by them from you as on 30.09.2018. As per the request of the said M/s. BTM Exports Ltd, we have debited your account for a sum of Rs. 1,99,47,076.92 by crediting the account of M/s. BTM Exports Ltd. for the same amount. You are therefore hereby requested to please credit our account in your books for a sum of Rs.3,99,47,076.92 (Rs. Three Crore Ninty Nine Lac Fourty Seven Thousand Seventy Six and Paise Ninty Two Only) by making debit to the account of aforesaid M/s. BTM Exports Ltd. accordingly and provide as your duly signed and stamped acknowledgement for aforesaid transaction.

Thanking you, For Essline Engineers and Consultants Pvt Ltd.”

“Тиe, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:30 PM Prathamesh Sontakke <ac3.sds@driveindia.co.in> To: lokesh <lokesh@essline.co.in> Cc:"Sanjeevtekriwal@btmindia.com"<Sanjeevtekriwal@btmin dia.com>, tushartekriwal <tushar.tekriwal@essline.com> Dear Lokesh ji, Kindly share ledger in excel format Regards Prathamesh Sontakke”

“vi) That the Ledger of Corporate Debtor at Page no. 86 and 87 of their Reply begins with the corresponding entry of Rs.9,37,33,173.01/ which is as per the Audit Confirmation Letter issued by the Operational Creditor dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure A-7 Page 121) and records further back-back sales transactions between the parties up to the further confirmed amount of Rs.5,85,67, 489.84/ (as on 24.09.2018 admitted by Operational Creditor as 30.09.2018 as per Page 43 of the Reply of Corporate Debtor), which is also admitted by the Operational Creditor in its Rejoinder at Para No. 5.6 at Page 15. Thereafter, the 'account adjustment letter' for an amount of Rs. 3,99,47,076.92 dated 04.10.2018 was further admitted as a 'standalone' instance of an adjustment/set off request between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor' at Para No. 5.6 at Page 15 of the Rejoinder itself. ……….”

“40 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. 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.”

“19.

In a recent judgment of this Court in Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd. [Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353 : (2018) 1 SCC (Civ) 311] , this Court has categorically laid down that IBC is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. It is also laid down that whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment: (SCC pp. 392-95, 398 & 402, paras 33-34, 37, 42-45 & 51)

“33.

The scheme under Sections 8 and 9 of the Code, appears to be that an operational creditor, as defined, may, on the occurrence of a default (i.e. on non-payment of a debt, any part whereof has become due and payable and has not been repaid), deliver a demand notice of such unpaid operational debt or deliver the copy of an invoice demanding payment of such amount to the corporate debtor in the form set out in Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Form 3 or 4, as the case may be [Section 8(1)]. Within a period of 10 days of the receipt of such demand notice or copy of invoice, the corporate debtor must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute and/or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute [Section 8(2)(a)]. What is important is that the existence of the dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-existing i.e. it must exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoice, as the case may be. In case the unpaid operational debt has been repaid, the corporate debtor shall within a period of the selfsame 10 days send an attested copy of the record of the electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor or send an attested copy of the record that the operational creditor has encashed a cheque or otherwise received payment from the corporate debtor [Section 8(2)(b)]. It is only if, after the expiry of the period of the said 10 days, the operational creditor does not either receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of dispute, that the operational creditor may trigger the insolvency process by filing an application before the adjudicating authority under Sections 9(1) and 9(2). This application is to be filed under Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 in Form 5, accompanied with documents and records that are required under the said form. Under Rule 6(2), the applicant is to dispatch by registered post or speed post, a copy of the application to the registered office of the corporate debtor. Under Section 9(3), along with the application, the statutory requirement is to furnish a copy of the invoice or demand notice, an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt and a copy of the certificate from the financial institution maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor. Apart from this information, the other information required under Form 5 is also to be given. Once this is done, the adjudicating authority may either admit the application or reject it. If the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete, the adjudicating authority, under the proviso to sub-section (5), may give a notice to the applicant to rectify defects within 7 days of the receipt of the notice from the adjudicating authority to make the application complete. Once this is done, and the adjudicating authority finds that either there is no repayment of the unpaid operational debt after the invoice [Section 9(5)(i)(b)] or the invoice or notice of payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor [Section 9(5)(i)(c)], or that no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor from the corporate debtor or that there is no record of such dispute in the information utility [Section 9(5)(i)(d)], or that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed by the operational creditor [Section 9(5)(i)(e)], it shall admit the application within 14 days of the receipt of the application, after which the corporate insolvency resolution process gets triggered. On the other hand, the adjudicating authority shall, within 14 days of the receipt of an application by the operational creditor, reject such application if the application is incomplete and has not been completed within the period of 7 days granted by the proviso [Section 9(5)(ii)(a)]. It may also reject the application where there has been repayment of the operational debt [Section 9(5)(ii)(b)], or the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor [Section 9(5)(ii)(c)]. It may also reject the application if the notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility [Section 9(5)(ii)(d)]. Section 9(5)(ii)(d) refers to the notice of an existing dispute that has so been received, as it must be read with Section 8(2)(a). Also, if any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional, the application may be rejected [Section 9(5)(ii)(e)].

34.

Therefore, the adjudicating authority, when examining an application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:

(i)

Whether there is an “operational debt” as defined exceeding Rs 1 lakh? (See Section 4 of the Act)

(ii)

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

(iii)

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? If any one of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would have to be rejected. 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. ***

37.

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. 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. I^CICI Bank [Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. I^CICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 : (2018) 1 SCC (Civ) 356] . 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. This Court then went on to state: (SCC p. 440, paras 29-30)

‘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.

30.

On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case of a corporate debtor who commits a default of a financial debt, the adjudicating authority has merely to see the records of the information utility or other evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise.’

42.

This being the case, is it not open to the adjudicating authority to then go into whether a dispute does or does not exist?

43.

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 [Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P) Ltd., (1971) 3 SCC 632] has, therefore, disappeared with the disappearance of this ground in Section 271 of the Companies Act.

44.

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.

45.

The expression “existence” has been understood as follows:

‘Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the following meaning of the word “existence”:

(a)

Reality, as opp. to appearance.

(b)

The fact or state of existing; actual possession of being. Continued being as a living creature, life, esp. under adverse conditions. Something that exists; an entity, a being. All that exists. (Page 894, Oxford English Dictionary)’

51.

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. 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.”

(emphasis in original)”

“19.

It could thus be seen that this Court has held that one of the objects of IBC 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 has been held that it is for this reason that it is enough that a dispute exists between the parties.

21.

It is thus clear that once the operational creditor has filed an application which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) IBC, if a notice has been received by operational creditor or if there is a record of dispute in the information utility. What is required is that the notice by the corporate debtor must bring to the notice of operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. All that the adjudicating authority is required 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 a mere bluster. It has been held that however, at this stage, the Court is not required to be satisfied as to whether the defence is likely to succeed or not. The Court also cannot go into the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated hereinabove. It has been held that so long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has no other option but to reject the application.”

“32.

There are noticeable differences in the IBC between the procedure of initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor and initiation of CIRP by an operational creditor. On a reading of Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC, it is patently clear that an Operational Creditor can only trigger the CIRP process, when there is an undisputed debt and a default in payment thereof. If the claim of an operational creditor is undisputed and the operational debt remains unpaid, CIRP must commence, for IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an Operational Creditor. However, if the debt is disputed, the application of the Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP must be dismissed.”