A pre-existing dispute negates the initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC.

ORDER

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 (“IBC”) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by Shivaami Cloud Services Private Limited, (‘Operational Creditor/Petitioner’) seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Plurilock Security Private Limited, (‘Corporate Debtor/Respondent’) for an Operational Debt of Rs. 2,41,03,807/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty-One Lakh Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seven only).

Facts as per the Application:

2. The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company primarily involved in the business of providing Google Cloud Platform Services, which is represented by Ms. Hema Rajput, the authorised representative of the Petitioner with its office situated at 1001-1012, R Square, LBS Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400080

3. The Respondent, a Public Limited Company incorporated on 22-07-2021, is involved in Cybersecurity Sector and having its registered office at 2, Carnation, Yari Road, Versova, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400061.

4. The Petitioner is a Google Reseller facilitating enterprise-grade usage of Google Cloud Platform Services to various customers, including the Respondent. The Petitioner is billed by Google and in turn the Petitioner bills its client while providing credit period. The Petitioner is also reseller of the Respondent’s Security Products.

5. During March 2023, there was a spike in consumption of Google Cloud Services by the Respondent, for which Google Inc. raised a demand of USD 4,50,000. Though the Respondent did not deny the spike in usage but did not pay the demanded amount. The Petitioner corresponded with Google Inc. seeking waiver of the excess charge and, after efforts spanning over a year, obtained a 50% waiver of the demanded amount.

6. Consequently, the Petitioner raised Invoice No. SCS/2024101694 dated 05.04.2024 for the balance amount pertaining to services for March 2023. As on this date, an amount of Rs.2,27,78,575/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty- Seven Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-Five only) remained outstanding. The Petitioner filed the Record of Default with NeSL on 03.06.2024; the same was deemed authenticated on 19.06.2024 and issued by NeSL on 12.08.2024.

7. The Petitioner thereafter raised a further invoice, SCS/2024124461 dated 05.08.2024, due on 19.09.2024, for Rs.13,25,232.41 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Two and Forty-One Paise only). Meanwhile, the Petitioner also issued the demand notice in Form 3 dated 14.08.2024, for the total amount Rs.2,41,03,807/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty- One Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seven only) due from the Respondent.

8. In response to the Demand Notice above, the Respondent sent a reply dated 24.08.2024, disputing the said demand notice by referencing a pre-existing dispute between the parties. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed this present petition for initiating CIRP against the Respondent.

Submissions of the Petitioner, in brief:

9. The Respondent in the reply has alleged existence of pre-existing dispute and stated that it is not liable to pay for a spike in usage of the Google Cloud Platform. It is submitted that no email, letter, internal communication, support ticket, legal notice, or protest from the Respondent prior to 14.05.2024 disputes the spike, data usage, pricing, or accuracy of the invoice. The only reference is a vague email dated 14.05.2024 merely stating that the invoice is “disputed” without any supporting document, explanation, or basis.

10. The first and only time the Respondent