222 SEBI & Corporate Laws - Reports [Vol. 154
of
dispute
is
lame
and
without
any
supporting
evidence
can
be
categorised
as^
moonshine
dispute.Further
the
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
in
the
matter
of
Mobilox Innovations
(P.) Ltd
.
v.
Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd.
[ 2017 ]
85
taxmann.com
292 / 144
SCL
37 ,
the^
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
of
India
held
as
follows:
‘ 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.’Further
in
the
matter
of
Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd.,In
re
[ 2015 ]
57
taxmann.
com
158
Hon’ble
High
Court
of
Rajasthan
held
as
follows:
“The
fact
which
arises
for
attention
is
that
the
goods
were
supplied
in
August
and^
September,
2009
and
the
objection
as
to
their
purported
quality
was
raised
in^
October,
2011.
No
steps
under
the
Sale
of
Goods
Act,
1948
either
to
reject
the
supposedly^
sub-standard
goods
or
seek
a
diminution
of
their
price
appears
to
have
been^
taken
by
the
respondent
company.
Obviously,
the
goods
in
issue
as
supplied
being^
consumed,
they
were
not
sub-standard.
A
belated
half-hearted
dispute
indi
cates -
and^ that^ the^ allegation^ of^ goods^ supplied^ being^ sub-standard^ was/is^ not^ bona fide
set^ the^ respondent^ company^ has^ no^ substance^ in^ its^ defence^ at^ all.^ The^ defence^
195 6 up^ in^ the^ reply^ dated^29.^10.^2011 to^ the^ notice^ under^ section^434 of^ the^ Act^ of^
was/is vague and quite apparently is belated one incapable of any credibility.”
14.
In
the
matter
of
Topsgroup Services Ltd.
v.
BLS IT-Services (P.) Ltd.
[ 2018 ]
94
taxmann.com
305 ,
Hon’ble
NCLT,
New
Delhi
held
as
follows:
“Respondent
has
taken
the
stand
that
there
is
existence
of
dispute
with
respect
to
the
debt^
and
demand
in
question.
There
has
been
no
clear
communication
of
dispute
to^
lo^ dtghee^ da.pplicant^ about^ deficiency^ in^ services.^ No^ damage/counter^ claim^ has^ been^
there^ No^ arbitration^ and/or^ legal^ proceedings^ in^ the^ matter^ are^ pending.^ When^
dispu^ ites^ ,absolutely^ no^ document^ or^ particulars^ to^ support^ the^ claim^ of^ existence^ of^
of^ the^ mere^ claim^ of^ dispute^ that^ rose^ in^ the^ reply^ given^ belatedly^ after^ issue^
to^ notice^ u/s.^8 of^ IBC^ and^ in^ the^ pleadings^ in^ defence^ can^ be^ termed^ as^ motivated^
evade the liability and thus, dismissed.”
Thus,
the
above
observations
support
the
finding
arrived
at
that
the
belatedly
raised^
dispute
without
supported
documents
cannot
be
termed
as
genuine
dispute.^