Supreme Court: Any dispute under section 8 of IBC must truly be in facts and not suspicious or hypothetical.

The Appeal was made under section 62 of IBC against NCLAT order, upholding an order by NCLT which admitted petition under Section 9 IBC.

Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran reiterated the law laid down in Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Private Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353.

It may be noted that Section 5(6) of the IBC defines the ‘dispute’ as “dispute includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to: (a) the existence of the amount of debt; (b) quality of goods or service; or (c) the breach of a representation or warranty”.

A Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a corporate debtor can be initiated by its operational creditor on occurrence of a ‘payment default’ (of operational debt), by filing an application before the relevant National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 9 of the IBC.


It 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.”

In Mobilox, the Supreme Court held that the word “and” occurring in Section 8(2)(a) of the IBC must be read as “or”. The court, interpreting the definition of ‘dispute’, had further observed thus: “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”

The corporate debtor has 10 (ten) days to either pay or bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence of a dispute and the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of” such Demand Notice (Section 8 (2) of IBC) (Notice of Dispute). In case the corporate debtor has issued a Notice of Dispute, the CIRP application of the operational creditor is required to be rejected by the NCLT.

Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2730 OF 2020
Case name: VISHAL VIJAY KALANTRI vs. DBM GEOTECHNICS & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s