NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 9, 9(3)(B), 9(3)(C), 9(5), 9(5) (2)(D), 14(1), 14(2), 14(3), 14(4) OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016, REGULATION 6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CORPORATE PERSON) REGULATIONS, 2016 AND RULE 6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Royale Resinex Pvt. Ltd Vs. Greatech Telecom Technologies Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0003

NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'code') read with Rules 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor. While allowing the application NCLT held that 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 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 required 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." In view of the above observation it can be concluded that the dispute raised by the corporate debtor, is spurious, plainly frivolous and unable to categorize as genuine dispute as reproduced above. Hence, contention of the corporate debtor, of a pre existing dispute without any evidence and merit is a clear after thought to defeat the claim of the applicant.