Section 9 admission: late part-payment, balance-sheet acknowledgment and a pre-existing quality dispute
An unlisted auto-components maker in Pune stopped paying its tooling vendor from January 2018. Invoices totalling ₹1.62 crore fell due on 15 January 2018. The vendor emailed in February and March 2018 alleging defective die sets and a lost customer line, and the maker replied that the tooling was under warranty and would be replaced. Nothing further happened until June 2019, when the maker paid ₹15 lakh against the oldest invoice and booked it as 'part payment - tooling'. The maker's audited balance sheet for FY 2019-20, signed in September 2020, shows the vendor under trade payables at ₹1.47 crore. The vendor issued a Section 8 demand notice in June 2021; no reply came within ten days, and it filed a Section 9 application in August 2021. The maker now argues that the application is barred by limitation and that a genuine dispute over defective tooling exists.
1. Is there a 'pre-existing dispute' that should defeat the Section 9 application at the admission stage?
Read the worked answer
Test to apply. Section 9(5)(ii)(d) allows rejection where a dispute exists. Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software (SC, 2018) requires the Adjudicating Authority to ask only two things: is the dispute pre-existing (raised before the Section 8 notice), and is it plausible - not spurious, hypothetical or a moonshine defence? Merits are not tried at admission.
Application to the facts. The vendor's February–March 2018 emails, and the maker's own replies conceding a warranty issue and promising replacement, pre-date the June 2021 demand notice by over three years and relate to the same ₹1.62 crore of invoices. That is a specific, plausible commercial dispute about quality of supply, not a bare denial manufactured after the notice. The ₹15 lakh part-payment in June 2019 does not extinguish the dispute; paying part of a bill is not an admission that no dispute exists.
Conclusion. The Section 9 application should be rejected at the threshold, with liberty to the vendor to pursue arbitration or a civil suit. Contrast a case where the only 'dispute' is a denial letter written after receipt of the demand notice - that is not pre-existing and would not save the debtor.
2. Does limitation defeat the application? Work through the dates, the acknowledgments and the applicable authority.
Read the worked answer
The starting position. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings. B.K. Educational Services v. Parag Gupta (SC, 2018) settles that Article 137 gives three years from the date of default - not from the demand notice. Default here was 15 January 2018, so the period ran out on 15 January 2021. Filing in August 2021 is, on that footing, beyond time.
The acknowledgments. Section 18 of the Limitation Act restarts time on a written acknowledgment signed by the debtor made before expiry; Section 19 does the same for a part-payment on account of the debt. The June 2019 payment of ₹15 lakh - booked expressly as 'part payment - tooling' - was made well within the three-year window and gives a fresh period expiring in June 2022. Independently, the FY 2019-20 balance sheet signed in September 2020 acknowledges ₹1.47 crore as payable and gives a fresh period to September 2023.
Conclusion. The limitation objection fails. Note also that the acknowledged balance of ₹1.47 crore still exceeds the ₹1 crore threshold under the 2020 notification, and that limitation is tested invoice-wise, so the RP should verify each invoice's default date rather than the oldest one alone.
3. Assume the NCLT admits the application despite the dispute. What happens to the vendor's defective-tooling claim, and what should the vendor do?
Read the worked answer
Consequences of admission. Admission triggers the Section 14 moratorium: no suit or proceeding against the corporate debtor can be instituted or continued, and management vests in the resolution professional under Section 17. The Adjudicating Authority does not adjudicate the quality dispute - its jurisdiction at admission is limited to existence of default, and the counter-allegation is no longer a defence to the debt.
Position of the vendor. Its ₹1.62 crore (less the ₹15 lakh) becomes a claim to be submitted to the RP with proof. The defective-die allegation is a counterclaim or damages claim; the Code provides no general right of set-off, so it cannot be adjusted against the admitted claim, and any such claim must be pursued separately after the moratorium ends or with the leave of the Authority. It will rank in the waterfall under Section 53 only to the extent admitted, and as an operational debt it sits well below financial creditors.
Practical point for the vendor. Its best protection was at the Section 8/9 stage: a genuine dispute would have blocked admission altogether. Once admitted, the vendor's commercial leverage is limited to voting on the plan through the CoC's operational creditor representation, which the Code does not give it.