JUDGEMENT

(Physical Mode) 12/04/2023: Background: ‘Heard’ the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant, Mr. Rahul Balaji, appearing for the ‘Appellant’, at the ‘Admission’ stage, itself. To avoid an avoidable delay, ‘Notice’ is not issued and this ‘Tribunal’, proceeds straightaway, for passing necessary ‘Judgement’, in this ‘Appeal’.

The ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’/ ‘Operational Creditor’, has preferred the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 94 of 2023, as an ‘Aggrieved Person’, on being dissatisfied with the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 13/02/2023, in C.P.(IB)/159/CHE/2022, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai’.

Earlier, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai’, while passing the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 13/02/2023, in C.P.(IB)/159/CHE/2022 (Filed by the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’/ ‘Operational Creditor’), at Paragraph 10, has observed the following:

Para 10: “It is not a disputed fact that there is a cased pending before the MSME FC Pondicherry in Case No. 3444/Ind & Com/Unit-III/B7/2020. The same also forms a part of the Applicant/Operational Creditor’s submissions. Thus Taking Into consideration the blanket of facts and circumstances of this case, this Adjudicating Authority comes to the inevitable conclusion that this Application is liable to be dismissed as there is a “pre-existing dispute” in light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited; 2017 1 SCC Online SC 353.” and consequently, dismissed the ‘Application’/ ‘Petition’.

Appellant’s Contentions: Assailing the ‘Correctness’, ‘Propriety’, ‘Validity’ and ‘Legality’ of the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 13/02/2023, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai’, the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’/ ‘Operational Creditor’, submits that the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Operational Creditor’ was approached by the ‘Respondent’, to ‘Pack’, ‘Store’ and ‘Sell’ Ceramic Tiles, and further the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Petitioner’, was supplying the said Boxes to the ‘Respondent’, for more than ‘5 years’ and it had raised ‘Invoices’, from time to time and inspite of the passing of the number of months, large amount of money remain unpaid by the ‘Respondent’. But the ‘Activity’ of ‘Packing’, ‘Storing’ and ‘Selling’ of the said sale boxes continued, without any disruption.

Advancing his ‘Argument’, the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Operational Creditor’, points out that during the course of the Appellant’s/ Petitioner’s Business relationship with the ‘Respondent’/ ‘Corporate Debtor’, the ‘Appellant’, had raised more than ‘1716 Invoices’, amounting to Rs. 6,82,66,341/- (Six Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Forty One Only), towards which the ‘Respondent’/ ‘Corporate Debtor’, had paid a sum of Rs. 4,91,11,111 (Four Crores Ninety One Lakhs Eleven Thousand Hundred and Eleven only), leaving a balance of Rs. 1,91,55,230/- (One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Only). That apart, the last payment effected by the ‘Respondent’/ ‘Corporate Debtor’, was on 23/06/2020, and hence there is a ‘Admission of Liability’, on the part of the ‘Respondent’/ ‘Corporate Debtor’. Also that, the Parties were maintaining a running account for Business Transactions between them throughout the length of their Business Relationship.

Expatiating his ‘Argument’, the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Operational Creditor’, emphatically, points out that, although the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Petitioner’, had already addressed an ‘Application’, dated 07/10/2020 to the ‘Chairperson’, ‘Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council’, Puducherry’ (making a reference), whereby and where under, it was mentioned among other things, that the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Petitioner’, had supplied the go