SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, February 08, 2023

Printed For: Srinath Sridevan
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 22541

In the National Company Law Tribunal†

(BEFORE VEERA BRAHMA RAO AREKAPUDI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND ASHOK KUMAR BORAH,
MEMBER (JUDICIAL))

Wittur Elevator Components India Pvt. Ltd. …

Applicant/Operational Creditor;
Versus
Axiomata Elevators Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent/Corporate Debtor.
TIBA No. 34/KOB/2019‡
Decided on November 26, 2019
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for applicant .. M/s. Surana and Surana
Counsel for respondent .. M/s. Vipin Warrier & Vidyalakshmi.
ORDER
1. This is an Application filed under Section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,
2016 (hereinafter as I&B Code) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter as Rules) by the
Operational Creditor WITTUR ELEVATOR COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
(hereinafter as ‘Operational Creditor’) against AXIOMATA ELEVATORS PRIVATE
LIMITED (hereinafter as ‘Corporate Debtor’).
2. The Operational Creditor is involved in the business of supplying elevator
components and undertook supply of such materials to Corporate Debtor.
3. The Operational Creditor submitted that based on the purchase order the
Operational Creditor supplied custom made goods to the Corporate Debtor. The
Operational Creditor continued its business with Corporate Debtor and raised various
invoices claiming the outstanding debt. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 60,78,450/-
(Rupees Sixty Lakh Seventy-Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only) is payable
by the Corporate Debtor.
4. The Operational Creditor further submitted that on 21.11.2016 a letter was sent
to Corporate Debtor requesting payment of the outstanding dues. The Operational
Creditor reminded the Corporate Debtor that as per the agreed terms of payment the
Corporate Debtor ought to have made the payment within 30 days from the date of
invoice. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to make the payments for over 500
days. Therefore, the Operational Creditor sent another mail dated 24.11.2016.
Thereafter the Corporate Debtor issued 6 cheques amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) which were dishonoured under the Caption ‘payment
stopped by the drawer’.
5. Under such circumstances the Operational Creditor filed a petition under. The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 23.09.2017. The Corporate Debtor through a
reply letter dated 19.10.2017 acknowledged the debt due and seek more time to
settle the same due to financial crisis of their clients.
6. The Operational Creditor further submitted that due to continuous failure of the
Corporate Debtor to honour its commitments, the Operational Creditor had issued a
statutory notice dated 26.10.2017 as per Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code 2016. The Operational Creditor through demand notice demanded payment of an
outstanding due to the tune of Rs. 38,83,488/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakhs Eighty-
Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Eight Only). The Corporate Debtor sent a
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
Printed For: Srinath Sridevan
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reply dated 10.11.2017 and taken a stand contrary to what was earlier admitted and is
merely attempting to conjure up what is nothing but a moon shine defence.
7. The Operational Creditor further contented that at no instance prior to the reply
notice the Corporate Debtor whisper about the alleged ‘low production problem’. It is
nothing but an afterthought of Corporate Debtor to avoid rightful claim of Operational
Creditor.
8. At this juncture, the Operational Creditor quoted the judgement in Mobliox
Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, ((2018) 1 SCC 353 :
AIR 2017 SC 4532), to prove that a ‘dispute’ should not be patently feeble legal
argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence, as is the case of the
Corporate Debtor herein.
“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.”
9. Hence, the Operational creditor filed this Application to initiate Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process, declaration of Moratorium and appointment of Interim
Resolution Professional under Section 9 of the Code.
10. The Corporate Debtor submitted that a bonafide dispute existed even before the
issuance of statutory notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B code, regarding the quality
and quantity of the materials supplied by the Operational Creditor. It is also submitted
by Corporate Debtor that the letter dated 19.10.2017 is not an acknowledgement of
debt by the Corporate Debtor but a letter of dispute. Therefore, it is evident from the
letter that materials in excess of requirement was dumped on the Corporate Debtor by
the Operational Creditor. And also, the Corporate Debtor is willing to pay what was
actually due, if any after reconciliation based on the dispute raised by the Corporate
Debtor to which the Operational Creditor has not responded.
11. In the statutory notice dated 26.10.2017 the Operational Creditor stated that
“all materials sent by our client have been received by you and are in your custody.
Merely because your end customer has not completed the project, the same is not
reason for our client's bill not to be paid.” Therefore, it is clearly evident from that the
Operational Creditor did not even deny the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor to
the effect that excess materials were supplied and demanded the payments due.
Therefore, in reply to the statutory notice the Corporate Debtor categorically denied
any liability to pay and reiterate the dispute with respect to quantity as well as quality.
The Counsel for the Corporate Debtor in order to substantiate his argument referred to
Mobliox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (supra),
25. “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
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
Printed For: Srinath Sridevan
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.”
12. It is clear from aforesaid judgement that the adjudicating authority must reject
the application under 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the
Operational Creditor under S. 9(3)(b) of the code, so as to enable such rejection,
mandates that an application under Section 9(1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit
to the effect that there is no notice given by Corporate Debtor relating to a dispute of
the unpaid operational debt. But in the instant application, the Operational Creditor
affirmed that it has not received any notice relating to dispute in reply to their demand
notice under Section 8(1) of I&B Code 2016. The Operational Creditor supressed the
fact that the statutory notice was accompanied by a reply dated 30.05.2018 which
clearly spells out the existence of the dispute in this matter.
13. It is also submitted by the Corporate debtor that the Application filed by the
Operational Creditor is barred by limitation in terms of Section 238A of the I & B Code.
Therefore, the invoices produced along with application filed by the Corporate Debtor
evidences that the period of 3 year have elapsed even from the date of invoice except
for the invoices dated 30.11.2015 and 30.12.2015. To provide evidence to support
their contention they referred to B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and
Associates (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23988 OF 2017).
“27. It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed
under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of
the Limitation Act gets 53 attracted. “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a
default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing
of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the
Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case,
Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such
application.”
14. Referring to the aforesaid reasons the Counsel for the Corporate Debtor
submitted that the application is to compel the Corporate Debtor to pay disputed
claims wherein the operational creditor had ample opportunities to file a civil suit.
However, the Operational Creditor chooses not to pursue such remedies and choose to
initiate IRP proceedings wherein a fact finding with respect to a dispute is not
permissible.
15. In view of above the Corporate Debtor also referred to the judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Private limited;
“13. Following this judgment, it becomes clear that operational creditors cannot
use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a
substitute for debt enforcement procedures. The alarming result of an operational
debt contained in an arbitral award for a small amount of say, two lakhs of rupees,
cannot possibly jeopardize an otherwise solvent company worth several crores of
rupees. Such a company would be well within its rights to state that it is
challenging the Arbitral Award passed against it, and the mere factum of challenge
would be sufficient to state that it disputes the Award. Such a case would clearly
come within para 38 of Mobilox Innovations (supra), being a case of a pre-existing
ongoing dispute between the parties. The Code cannot be used in terrorem to
extract this sum of money of Rs. two lakhs even though it may not be finally
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
Printed For: Srinath Sridevan
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

payable as adjudication proceedings in respect thereto are still pending. We repeat

that the object of the Code, at least insofar as operational creditors are concerned,
is to put the insolvency process against a corporate debtor only in clear cases where
a real dispute between the parties as to the debt owed does not exist.”
16. It is also submitted by the Corporate Debtor that the Petition filed under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is also pending before the Court.
Therefore, for the above said reasons the petition be dismissed along with costs to the
Corporate Debtor and penal actions may be initiated under Section 76 of the I & B
Code.
17. We heard both the Counsels and also perused the whole case records including
counter, re-joinder and photocopies appended with the case records. It appears from
the record that the Operational Creditor had sent several E-mails demanding the
repayment of the debt due. The said E-mails were sent on various dates 07.06.2015,
26.08.2016, 09.09.2016, 12.09.2016, 19.09.2016, 21.09.2016, 28.09.2016 and
14.10.2016. Thereafter the Corporate Debtor issued 6 (six) cheques totalling to
amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Seventeen Lakhs Only) on 13.09.2017 out of total
outstanding Rs. 38,83,488/- without raising any disputes. However, the aforesaid
cheque was dishonoured ultimately with the objection “payment stopped by drawer”.
Apart from that the Corporate Debtor has not raised any objection at the instance of
goods supplied. Therefore, this clearly indicates the intention of Corporate Debtor to
wrongfully denying the amount due to the Operational Creditor.
18. Further the Corporate Debtor had sent a letter dated 19.10.2017 stating the
disputes on the supplied materials after a long time. The aforesaid letter dated
19.10.2017 is nothing but an acknowledgement of debt and cannot be claimed as an
expression of dispute. Which proved that the letter was sent as an afterthought when
the Corporate Debtor could not find an appropriate market to sell the products he
ordered. The following sentence from the above said letter dated amply proves the
said fact.
“…. give us more time to settle the payment after completing the projects (your
material supplied). We are also ready to pay the amount in instalment also”.
Therefore, the argument put by the Corporate Debtor is nothing but to avoid the
rightful claim of the Operational Creditor.
19. The Corporate Debtor also took the view that the invoice which is due and
payable is time barred except two which are issued on 30.11.2015 and 30.12.2015 for
Rs. 540834 (Rupees Five Lakh Forty Thousand and eight Hundred and Thirty-Four
Only) and Rs. 1601462 (Rupees Sixteen lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty-
Two Only) respectively. Even assuming other invoices are time barred as per Corporate
Debtor's claim, the two Invoices which are within the limitation far exceeds the
minimum amount i.e., Rs. 1 lakh stipulated under Section 4 of I & B Code 2016.
20. In the light of above findings, we are of the view that the instant Application
deserves to be admitted. The Application, TIBA/34/KOB/2019 is ADMITTED and
the moratorium is declared for prohibiting all of the following in terms of Section 14(1)
of the Code as amended:
a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against
the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any
court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing off by the corporate debtor
any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the
corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002;
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
Printed For: Srinath Sridevan
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is

occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor
21. It is further directed that the services to the Corporate-Debtor, if continuing,
shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. The
moratorium shall however not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the
Central Government in consultation with any financial regulator and to a surety in a
contract of guarantee to a Corporate Debtor.
a. The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the
completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench
approves the resolution plan under Sub-Section (1) of Section 31 or passes an
order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33 as the case may be.
b. That the public pronouncement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
shall be made immediately as specified under Section 13 of IBC.
c. The Operational Creditor has not recommended name of IRP, therefore this Bench
at this moment appoints Mr. SATHIQ BUHARI having registration No.
IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00758/2017-2018/11307 (Email - sathiq33@gmail.com)
residing at Sagreen Law Chamber, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala,
695035 as Interim Resolution Professional to carry the functions as mentioned
under IBC, the fee payable to IRP/RP shall comply with the IBBI
Regulations/Circulars/Directions issued in this regard.
d. We direct the Operational Creditor to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with the
Interim Resolution Professional to meet out the initial expenses to perform the
functions assigned to him in accordance with Regulation 6 of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person)
Regulations, 2016. The needful shall be done within three days for the date of
receipt of this order by the Operational Creditor. The amount however be subject
to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors as accounted for by Interim
Resolution Professional and shall be paid back to the Operational Creditor.
e. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to the
Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the Interim Resolution
Professional.
———
†
Kochi Bench
‡
(CP 1316/2018 of NCLT Chennai Bench)

(Under Section 9 Rule 6 of IBC, 2016)

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.