Akshit Aggarwal - 2019PGP068 - Business Law
Akshit Aggarwal - 2019PGP068 - Business Law
Akshit Aggarwal - 2019PGP068 - Business Law
ON
V.
Submitted by:-
Akshit Aggarwal
Business Law Report: Akshit Aggarwal
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2019PGP068
2019PGP068
Table of Contents
Criticism..............................................................................................8
Page 2 of 7
Business Law Report: Akshit Aggarwal
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2019PGP068
As part of the contract, the Operational Creditor had also signed a Non-
Operational Creditor sent notice u/s 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 (IBC) to which the Corporate Debtor replied disputing the claim
NCLT rejected the Operational Creditor’s Application u/s 9 of the IBC on the
NCLAT opined that NCLT had mechanically rejected the matter, it should have
The matter was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Corporate Debtor
Page 3 of 7
Business Law Report: Akshit Aggarwal
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2019PGP068
u/s 9 IBC
under Section 9 of the IBC Act will have to determine the following:1
1
https://ibclaw.in/existence-of-the-dispute-and-or-the-suit-or-arbitration-proceeding-must-be-pre-existing-it-
must-exist-before-the-receipt-of-the-demand-notice-or-invoice-u-s-8-ahluwalia-contracts-india-limited-vs/
Page 4 of 7
Business Law Report: Akshit Aggarwal
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2019PGP068
If there is any evidence given the application that shows the previously
mentioned obligation is expected and payable and has not yet been paid?
Also,
the receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid operational debt in relation
to such dispute?
have to be rejected.
Apart from the above, the adjudicating authority must follow the
Act, and admit or reject the application, as the case may be, depending
U/S9 IBC 2
The Apex Court while looking at the legislative intent in order to pronounce a
Bankruptcy Bill, 2015 where the definition of dispute included the usage of the
term 'bona-fide’
Thus the omission of the same in the final Act was interpreted by the Supreme
Court to be clear indication of the legislature's intent to make the final definition
2
Paras 37-39, page 78-79 discusses the above question of law
Page 5 of 7
Business Law Report: Akshit Aggarwal
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2019PGP068
an inclusive one rather than an exhaustive one i.e. to include dispute in any form
into the merit but must merely see whether such a dispute is actually present or
not. The dispute cannot be a figment of one's imagination which one has
and does not require a stricter test of plausibility of the defiance's success
i.e. instances where the existence of the dispute may be prima facie struck
down
3
Para 40, Page 85 of the Judgement discusses the above question of law
Page 6 of 7
Business Law Report: Akshit Aggarwal
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2019PGP068
CRITICISM
1. The verdict by the apex court in the case regarding the merit of the dispute
2. When given an option to either determine the bonafide of dispute or not, the
adjudicating authority may or may not look in the matter of the same.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
2. Whether NCLT can judge the genuineness of the dispute and whether it has
the power or to go into the merits of the case or not filed under IBC
3. The loopholes in IBC code and how there still remains some ambiguity in the
law
4. Evidence and proof required for the acceptance of the under IBC
5. Key insight into section 8 and section 9 under IBC which talks about
Page 7 of 7