K.KISHAN Vs. M/S VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
that the alternative contended for by the petitioner.? 15. A recent judgment of the Singapore High Court, contained in Lim PohYeoh (alias Lim Aster) and TS Ong Construction Pte Ltd. [2016] SGHC 179, was also referred to by Mr. Banerji. Again, in a situation which demands a far higher threshold that has to be crossed before the Insolvency Law can be said not to apply, the Singapore High Court referred to Rule 98(2)(a) of the Rules made under the Bankruptcy Act. The said Rule states that where a debtor appears to have a valid counter claim or cross-demand which is equivalent to or exceeds the amount of debt, the insolvency process will not be put against such debtor. It also referred to the Supreme Court Practice Directions to the same effect. (see paras 43 & 45 of the said judgment) 16. We now come to some of the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondent. It is important to note that both the Practice Directions referred to in the U.K. judgment and the Singapore High Court judgment, referred to in LKM Investment Holdings Pte Ltd. vs. Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd. [2000] SGHC 13, are in situations where the debt needs to be bona fide disputed, which is not the situation under our Code. For this reason, it is not possible to agree with learned counsel for the Respondent that a pending proceeding challenging an award or decree of a tribunal or Court would not make the debt contained therein a debt that is disputed. 17.The Australian High Court judgment also relied upon by the respondent in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd vs. Adrian John Compton [2017] HCA 28 was relied upon to show, in para 111 thereof, that where a judgment debt has been obtained after testing of the merits in adversarial litigation, then in the absence of some evidence of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice, a court exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction will rarely have substantial reasons to investigate whether the debt which emerged in the judgment was truly owed. With respect to the High Court of Australia, we may only state that following Mobilox Innovations (supra), it would be very difficult to incorporate the Australian law into our law. This is for the reason that our judgment in Mobilox Innovations (supra) has made it clear that the insolvency process, particularly in relation to operational creditors, cannot be used to bypass the adjudicatory and enforcement process of a debt contained in other statutes. We are, therefore, of the view that the higher threshold of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice laid down by the Australian High Court will have no application to the situation under our Code. 18. We repeat with emphasis that under our Code, insofar as an operational debt is concerned, all that has to be seen is whether the said debt can be said to be disputed, and we have no doubt in stating that the filing of a Section 34 petition against an Arbitral Award shows that a pre-existing dispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an Award, continues even after the Award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 & 37 has taken place. 19. We may hasten to add that there may be cases where a Section 34 petition challenging an Arbitral Award may clearly and unequivocally be barred by limitation, in that it can be demonstrated to the Court that the period of 90 days plus the discretionary period of 30 days has clearly expired, after which either no petition under Section 34 has been filed or a belated petition under Section 34 has been filed. It is only in such clear cases that the insolvency process may then be put into operation. 20. We may hasten to add that there may also be other cases where a Section 34 petition may have been instituted in the wrong court, as a result of which the petitioner may claim the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to get over the bar of limitation laid down in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. In such cases also, it is obvious that the insolvency process cannot be put into operation without an adjudication on the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 21. With regard to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, that the amount of Rs.1.71 Crores stood admitted by Mr. Banerji?s client, as was recorded in the Arbitral Award, suffice it to say that cross-claims of sums much above this amount has been turned down by the Arbitral Tribunal, which are pending in a Section 34 petition challenging the said Award. The very fact that there is a possibility that Mr. Banerji?s client may succeed on these cross-claims is sufficient to state that the operational debt, in the present case, cannot be said to be an undisputed debt. 22. We also accept Mr. Banerji?s submission that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in referring to Section 238 of the Code. Section 238 of the Code would apply in case there is an inconsistency between the Code and the Arbitration Act in the present case. We see no such inconsistency. On the contrary, the Award passed under the Arbitration Act together with the steps taken for its challenge would only make it clear that the operational debt, in the present case, happens to be a disputed one. 23. We are also of the view that the Appellate Tribunal, when it relied upon Form V Part 5 of the 2016 Rules to state that the operational debt would, therefore, be said to have been proved, missed the vital sub-clause (iii) in para 34 of Mobilox Innovations (supra). Even if it be clear that there be a record of an operational debt, it is important that the said debt be not disputed. If disputed within the parameters laid down in Mobilox Innovations (supra), an insolvency petition cannot be proceeded with further. 24.
1[ds]However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent strongly relied on the fact that this is not an ordinary case inasmuch as the amount of Rs.1.71 Crores which was awarded was admitted by Mr. Banerji?s client in the arbitral proceedings to be a debt due, and that this being so, there can be no dispute regarding the same. We are afraid that we are unable to agree. As was correctly pointed out by Mr. Banerji, counter claims for amounts far exceeding this were rejected by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which rejection is also the subjectmatter of challenge in a petition under Section 34 of the Act. It is important to note that unlike counter claim Nos. 1 and 2, which were rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal for lack of evidence, counter claim No.3 which amounts to Rs.19,88,20,475/was rejected on the basis of a price adjustment clause on merits. Therefore, it is difficult to say at this stage of the proceedings, that no dispute would exist between theIn para 38, this Court cautioned: We have also seen that one of the objects of the Code qua operational debts is to ensure that the amount of such debts, which is usually smaller than that of financial debts, does not enable operational creditors to put the corporate debtor into the insolvency resolution process prematurely or initiate the process for extraneous considerations. It is for this reason that it is enough that a dispute exists between the parties. Finally, the law was summed up as follows:51. 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 theFollowing this judgment, it becomes clear that operational creditors cannot use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures. The alarming result of an operational debt contained in an arbitral award for a small amount of say, two lakhs of rupees, cannot possibly jeopardize an otherwise solvent company worth several crores of rupees. Such a company would be well within its rights to state that it is challenging the Arbitral Award passed against it, and the mere factum of challenge would be sufficient to state that it disputes the Award. Such a case would clearly come within para 38 of Mobilox Innovations (supra), being a case of aongoing dispute between the parties. The Code cannot be used in terrorem to extract this sum of money of Rs. two lakhs even though it may not be finally payable as adjudication proceedings in respect thereto are still pending. We repeat that the object of the Code, at least insofar as operational creditors are concerned, is to put the insolvency process against a corporate debtor only in clear cases where a real dispute between the parties as to the debt owed does note Australian High Court judgment also relied upon by the respondent in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd vs. Adrian John Compton [2017] HCA 28 was relied upon to show, in para 111 thereof, that where a judgment debt has been obtained after testing of the merits in adversarial litigation, then in the absence of some evidence of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice, a court exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction will rarely have substantial reasons to investigate whether the debt which emerged in the judgment was truly owed. With respect to the High Court of Australia, we may only state that following Mobilox Innovations (supra), it would be very difficult to incorporate the Australian law into our law. This is for the reason that our judgment in Mobilox Innovations (supra) has made it clear that the insolvency process, particularly in relation to operational creditors, cannot be used to bypass the adjudicatory and enforcement process of a debt contained in other statutes. We are, therefore, of the view that the higher threshold of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice laid down by the Australian High Court will have no application to the situation under ourWe repeat with emphasis that under our Code, insofar as an operational debt is concerned, all that has to be seen is whether the said debt can be said to be disputed, and we have no doubt in stating that the filing of a Section 34 petition against an Arbitral Award shows that adispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an Award, continues even after the Award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 & 37 has takenWe may hasten to add that there may be cases where a Section 34 petition challenging an Arbitral Award may clearly and unequivocally be barred by limitation, in that it can be demonstrated to the Court that the period of 90 days plus the discretionary period of 30 days has clearly expired, after which either no petition under Section 34 has been filed or a belated petition under Section 34 has been filed. It is only in such clear cases that the insolvency process may then be put intoWe may hasten to add that there may also be other cases where a Section 34 petition may have been instituted in the wrong court, as a result of which the petitioner may claim the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to get over the bar of limitation laid down in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. In such cases also, it is obvious that the insolvency process cannot be put into operation without an adjudication on the applicability of Section 14 of the LimitationWith regard to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, that the amount of Rs.1.71 Crores stood admitted by Mr. Banerji?s client, as was recorded in the Arbitral Award, suffice it to say thatof sums much above this amount has been turned down by the Arbitral Tribunal, which are pending in a Section 34 petition challenging the said Award. The very fact that there is a possibility that Mr. Banerji?s client may succeed on theseis sufficient to state that the operational debt, in the present case, cannot be said to be an undisputedWe also accept Mr. Banerji?s submission that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in referring to Section 238 of the Code. Section 238 of the Code would apply in case there is an inconsistency between the Code and the Arbitration Act in the present case. We see no such inconsistency. On the contrary, the Award passed under the Arbitration Act together with the steps taken for its challenge would only make it clear that the operational debt, in the present case, happens to be a disputedWe are also of the view that the Appellate Tribunal, when it relied upon Form V Part 5 of the 2016 Rules to state that the operational debt would, therefore, be said to have been proved, missed the vital(iii) in para 34 of Mobilox Innovations (supra). Even if it be clear that there be a record of an operational debt, it is important that the said debt be not disputed. If disputed within the parameters laid down in Mobilox Innovations (supra), an insolvency petition cannot be proceeded with further.
### Instruction:
First, predict whether the appeal in case proceeding will be accepted (1) or not (0), and then explain the decision by identifying crucial sentences from the document.

### Input:
that the alternative contended for by the petitioner.? 15. A recent judgment of the Singapore High Court, contained in Lim PohYeoh (alias Lim Aster) and TS Ong Construction Pte Ltd. [2016] SGHC 179, was also referred to by Mr. Banerji. Again, in a situation which demands a far higher threshold that has to be crossed before the Insolvency Law can be said not to apply, the Singapore High Court referred to Rule 98(2)(a) of the Rules made under the Bankruptcy Act. The said Rule states that where a debtor appears to have a valid counter claim or cross-demand which is equivalent to or exceeds the amount of debt, the insolvency process will not be put against such debtor. It also referred to the Supreme Court Practice Directions to the same effect. (see paras 43 & 45 of the said judgment) 16. We now come to some of the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondent. It is important to note that both the Practice Directions referred to in the U.K. judgment and the Singapore High Court judgment, referred to in LKM Investment Holdings Pte Ltd. vs. Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd. [2000] SGHC 13, are in situations where the debt needs to be bona fide disputed, which is not the situation under our Code. For this reason, it is not possible to agree with learned counsel for the Respondent that a pending proceeding challenging an award or decree of a tribunal or Court would not make the debt contained therein a debt that is disputed. 17.The Australian High Court judgment also relied upon by the respondent in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd vs. Adrian John Compton [2017] HCA 28 was relied upon to show, in para 111 thereof, that where a judgment debt has been obtained after testing of the merits in adversarial litigation, then in the absence of some evidence of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice, a court exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction will rarely have substantial reasons to investigate whether the debt which emerged in the judgment was truly owed. With respect to the High Court of Australia, we may only state that following Mobilox Innovations (supra), it would be very difficult to incorporate the Australian law into our law. This is for the reason that our judgment in Mobilox Innovations (supra) has made it clear that the insolvency process, particularly in relation to operational creditors, cannot be used to bypass the adjudicatory and enforcement process of a debt contained in other statutes. We are, therefore, of the view that the higher threshold of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice laid down by the Australian High Court will have no application to the situation under our Code. 18. We repeat with emphasis that under our Code, insofar as an operational debt is concerned, all that has to be seen is whether the said debt can be said to be disputed, and we have no doubt in stating that the filing of a Section 34 petition against an Arbitral Award shows that a pre-existing dispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an Award, continues even after the Award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 & 37 has taken place. 19. We may hasten to add that there may be cases where a Section 34 petition challenging an Arbitral Award may clearly and unequivocally be barred by limitation, in that it can be demonstrated to the Court that the period of 90 days plus the discretionary period of 30 days has clearly expired, after which either no petition under Section 34 has been filed or a belated petition under Section 34 has been filed. It is only in such clear cases that the insolvency process may then be put into operation. 20. We may hasten to add that there may also be other cases where a Section 34 petition may have been instituted in the wrong court, as a result of which the petitioner may claim the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to get over the bar of limitation laid down in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. In such cases also, it is obvious that the insolvency process cannot be put into operation without an adjudication on the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 21. With regard to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, that the amount of Rs.1.71 Crores stood admitted by Mr. Banerji?s client, as was recorded in the Arbitral Award, suffice it to say that cross-claims of sums much above this amount has been turned down by the Arbitral Tribunal, which are pending in a Section 34 petition challenging the said Award. The very fact that there is a possibility that Mr. Banerji?s client may succeed on these cross-claims is sufficient to state that the operational debt, in the present case, cannot be said to be an undisputed debt. 22. We also accept Mr. Banerji?s submission that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in referring to Section 238 of the Code. Section 238 of the Code would apply in case there is an inconsistency between the Code and the Arbitration Act in the present case. We see no such inconsistency. On the contrary, the Award passed under the Arbitration Act together with the steps taken for its challenge would only make it clear that the operational debt, in the present case, happens to be a disputed one. 23. We are also of the view that the Appellate Tribunal, when it relied upon Form V Part 5 of the 2016 Rules to state that the operational debt would, therefore, be said to have been proved, missed the vital sub-clause (iii) in para 34 of Mobilox Innovations (supra). Even if it be clear that there be a record of an operational debt, it is important that the said debt be not disputed. If disputed within the parameters laid down in Mobilox Innovations (supra), an insolvency petition cannot be proceeded with further. 24.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
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 theFollowing this judgment, it becomes clear that operational creditors cannot use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures. The alarming result of an operational debt contained in an arbitral award for a small amount of say, two lakhs of rupees, cannot possibly jeopardize an otherwise solvent company worth several crores of rupees. Such a company would be well within its rights to state that it is challenging the Arbitral Award passed against it, and the mere factum of challenge would be sufficient to state that it disputes the Award. Such a case would clearly come within para 38 of Mobilox Innovations (supra), being a case of aongoing dispute between the parties. The Code cannot be used in terrorem to extract this sum of money of Rs. two lakhs even though it may not be finally payable as adjudication proceedings in respect thereto are still pending. We repeat that the object of the Code, at least insofar as operational creditors are concerned, is to put the insolvency process against a corporate debtor only in clear cases where a real dispute between the parties as to the debt owed does note Australian High Court judgment also relied upon by the respondent in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd vs. Adrian John Compton [2017] HCA 28 was relied upon to show, in para 111 thereof, that where a judgment debt has been obtained after testing of the merits in adversarial litigation, then in the absence of some evidence of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice, a court exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction will rarely have substantial reasons to investigate whether the debt which emerged in the judgment was truly owed. With respect to the High Court of Australia, we may only state that following Mobilox Innovations (supra), it would be very difficult to incorporate the Australian law into our law. This is for the reason that our judgment in Mobilox Innovations (supra) has made it clear that the insolvency process, particularly in relation to operational creditors, cannot be used to bypass the adjudicatory and enforcement process of a debt contained in other statutes. We are, therefore, of the view that the higher threshold of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice laid down by the Australian High Court will have no application to the situation under ourWe repeat with emphasis that under our Code, insofar as an operational debt is concerned, all that has to be seen is whether the said debt can be said to be disputed, and we have no doubt in stating that the filing of a Section 34 petition against an Arbitral Award shows that adispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an Award, continues even after the Award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 & 37 has takenWe may hasten to add that there may be cases where a Section 34 petition challenging an Arbitral Award may clearly and unequivocally be barred by limitation, in that it can be demonstrated to the Court that the period of 90 days plus the discretionary period of 30 days has clearly expired, after which either no petition under Section 34 has been filed or a belated petition under Section 34 has been filed. It is only in such clear cases that the insolvency process may then be put intoWe may hasten to add that there may also be other cases where a Section 34 petition may have been instituted in the wrong court, as a result of which the petitioner may claim the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to get over the bar of limitation laid down in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. In such cases also, it is obvious that the insolvency process cannot be put into operation without an adjudication on the applicability of Section 14 of the LimitationWith regard to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, that the amount of Rs.1.71 Crores stood admitted by Mr. Banerji?s client, as was recorded in the Arbitral Award, suffice it to say thatof sums much above this amount has been turned down by the Arbitral Tribunal, which are pending in a Section 34 petition challenging the said Award. The very fact that there is a possibility that Mr. Banerji?s client may succeed on theseis sufficient to state that the operational debt, in the present case, cannot be said to be an undisputedWe also accept Mr. Banerji?s submission that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in referring to Section 238 of the Code. Section 238 of the Code would apply in case there is an inconsistency between the Code and the Arbitration Act in the present case. We see no such inconsistency. On the contrary, the Award passed under the Arbitration Act together with the steps taken for its challenge would only make it clear that the operational debt, in the present case, happens to be a disputedWe are also of the view that the Appellate Tribunal, when it relied upon Form V Part 5 of the 2016 Rules to state that the operational debt would, therefore, be said to have been proved, missed the vital(iii) in para 34 of Mobilox Innovations (supra). Even if it be clear that there be a record of an operational debt, it is important that the said debt be not disputed. If disputed within the parameters laid down in Mobilox Innovations (supra), an insolvency petition cannot be proceeded with further.
