SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
K KISHAN - Appellant
Vs.
VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PVT LTD - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 21824, 21825 of 2017
Decided on : 14-08-2018
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Operational Debt - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ksheerabad Constructions Pvt. Ltd. regarding an operational debt arising from an Arbitral Award. The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming that the debt was owed by the corporate debtor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the existence of a dispute was evident from the fact that a Section 34 petition challenging the Arbitral Award was pending. The court emphasized that the insolvency process should not be used prematurely or for extraneous considerations, and that a real dispute must not exist for the insolvency process to be initiated.
Issues: The key issue was whether the operational debt could be considered disputed, given the pending Section 34 petition challenging the Arbitral Award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere fact of a pending Section 34 petition challenging an Arbitral Award indicated the existence of a pre-existing ongoing dispute between the parties, and the insolvency process should not be used prematurely or for extraneous considerations.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal and reversed it, allowing the appeals and discharging the bank guarantees.
ORDER :
R.F. Nariman, J.
The present appeals raise an important question as to whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) can be invoked in respect of an operational debt where an Arbitral Award has been passed against the operational debtor, which has not yet been finally adjudicated upon.
2. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy at hand are as follows:-
(i) In the present case, M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) entered into a sub-Contract Agreement with one M/s Ksheerabad Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'KCPL') on 01.02.2008, to undertake 50% of Section 2 work of 'Construction and widening of the existing two lane highway to four lanes on NH 67 at KM 190000 to KM 218215 admeasuring a total of 28.215 KM for and on behalf of KCPL.'
(ii) Apart from this Agreement, a separate agreement of the same date was entered into between the said KPCL and one M/s SDM Projects Private Limited, Bangalore, as a result of which, a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding was entered into on 09.05.2008 between KCPL, M/s SDM Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the Respondent.
(iii) During the course of the project, disputes and differences arose between the parties and the same were referred to an Arbitral Tribunal, which delivered its Award on 21.01.2017. One of the claims that was allowed by the said Award was in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,71,98,302/- which arises out of certain interim payment certificates. Another claim that was allowed related to higher rates of payment in which a sum of Rs. 13,56,98,624/- was awarded. Three cross claims that were made by the Respondent were rejected.
(iv) It is pertinent to note that, at this stage, a notice dated 06.02.2017 was sent by the Respondent to KCPL to pay an amount of Rs. 1,79,00,166/-. This notice was stated to be a notice under Section 8 of the Code. Within 10 days, by a letter dated 16.02.2017, KCPL disputed the invoice that was referred to in the said notice, stating that the said amount was, in fact, the subject-matter of an arbitration proceeding, and as per KCPL's accounts, the Respondent was liable to pay larger amounts to them.
(v) It may be noted that after the notice and reply, on 20.04.2017, a Section 34 petition was filed by KCPL under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the aforesaid Award. Needless to add, this petition was filed within the period of limitation set down in Section 34(3) of the Act.
(vi) It is only thereafter that a petition was filed under Section 9 of the Code, on 14.07.2017. In the gist of the case presented to the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT'), it was clearly stated as follows:-
“The above amount was included in the Statement of Claims filed before the Arbitral Tribunal duly constituted on 17.8.2014 along with other claims. The Tribunal gave its award on 21.1.2017 and upheld the above claim of VNCPL and awarded the above amount in favour of VNCPL and against KCPL. (Award copy enclosed)
Thus, the above amount has become an 'Operational Debt' to be paid by the corporate debtor M/s KCPL as defined u/Sec. 3(11) of the I&B Code 2016. A notice in Form-3 U/Sec. 8(1) of the I&B Code 2016 has already been served on the Corporate Debtor, M/s KCPL and a reply received from KCPL is also enclosed herewith for ready reference.”
In the Counter Affidavit before the NCLT, it was stated:
“10. I respectfully submit that the case of the petitioner in short is that since an award has been passed against the respondent here in an arbitration proceeding, though a petition U/Sec 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has been filed by the respondent before the competent court challenging the award the present application is maintainable U/Sec. 9 of the code though the respondent had raised a dispute in its replies dated 06-02-2017 & 05-06-2017 to the notice issued U/Sec.8(2) of the code by the applicant.
11. I respectfully submit that a dispu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.