Adjudicating Authority Can't Venture Into Appreciation Of Merit Of Pre-Existing Dispute, Not Empowered By Section 9 IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Ajai Das Mehrotra held that the adjudicating authority cannot venture into the appreciation of the merit of pre-existing dispute and embark upon the adjudication of rival contentions of parties. The bench held that Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code doesn't empower the adjudicating authority to take upon itself the task of sifting through the rival contentions raised and to give a judgment upon it. Section 9 of IBC allows operational creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings against defaulting corporate debtors. It involves issuing a demand notice, receiving a response, filing an application with the NCLT and if admitted, initiating the insolvency resolution process led by a resolution professional. Brief Facts: A contract for executing the four-laning of the Jhanji to Demow section of NH37 in Assam, from kilometers 491.05 to 535.25, was awarded to Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd (Operational Creditor) by the National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL). Due to the Operational Creditor's failure to complete the project, it appointed Kapasi Infracon LLP (Corporate Debtor) as a sub-contractor. Under this agreement, the Corporate Debtor was entitled to 96.5% of the net amount received from NHIDCL for each RA bill, with the Operational Creditor retaining 3.5% as a management fee. The agreement also allowed the Corporate Debtor to use the Operational Creditor's resources, including equipment and staff, with predetermined charges. Between November 12, 2019, and December 27, 2019, several pre-existing disputes arose between the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor. Despite hurdles, including cash flow issues attributed to the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor completed approximately 41.50% of the project work. On January 30, 2022, a new entity, Jalan Infrastructure LLP (JIL), entered into a principal agreement with the Operational Creditor, and a subsequent tripartite agreement with the Corporate Debtor was executed, wherein JIL agreed to infuse funds into the project. However, due to disputes between JIL and the Operational Creditor, these agreements were terminated on April 8, 2022, and referred to arbitration. On July 15, 2022, the Corporate Debtor issued a final bill demanding Rs. 19,05,41,478 for completed works. Later that day, the Operational Creditor issued a Section 8 IBC Demand Notice against the Corporate Debtor, claiming rental charges under the contract. In response, the Corporate Debtor invoked the arbitration clause and issued a notice of dispute. In July 2022, the Corporate Debtor filed a Section 9 arbitration petition before the High Court of Kolkata, while the Operational Creditor filed a Section 9 IBC petition before the Adjudicating Authority. The High Court of Kolkata referred the disputes to arbitration. Despite this, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 9 IBC petition. Later, the Arbitral Tribunal in Kolkata rejected the Corporate Debtor's Section 16 arbitration application. Section 16 of the Arbitration Act deals with the competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction. It states that the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The NCLT held that there was no pre-existing dispute between the parties. The NCLT noted that the Corporate Debtor had issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act demanding losses due to issues with JIL and rental charges during hindrances like CAA protests and COVID-19 lockdowns. The NCLT noted that the Corporate Debtor was responsible for all statutory taxes and fees. The NCLT found the claim of Rs. 1,10,73,672 for maintenance expenses unsustainable. It also noted that on May 20, 2022, it was agreed that the Corporate Debtor would pay Rs. 7,55,76,839 to the Operational Creditor, which was seen as resolving all disputes. Thus, the NCLT admitted the Section 9 IBC petition and reasoned that the arbitration notice served after the demand notice did not constitute a pre-existing dispute. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporate Debtor approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) and challenged the decision of the NCLT. Observations by the NCLAT: The NCLAT referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd vs. Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd (2018) 1 SCC 3531 in which the SC held that the existence of a dispute does not necessitate delving into the merits but requires a plausible contention that needs further investigation and is not merely spurious, frivolous, or vexatious. The dispute must be substantial enough to warrant adjudication by a competent court of law, thereby precluding the Adjudicating Authority from deciding the issue under...

Adjudicating Authority Can't Venture Into Appreciation Of Merit Of Pre-Existing Dispute, Not Empowered By Section 9 IBC: NCLAT

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Adjudicating Authority Can't Venture Into Appreciation Of Merit Of Pre-Existing Dispute, Not Empowered By Section 9 IBC: NCLAT

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers