CASE NAME	George Vinci Thomas vs. Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
CITATION	TIBA/14/KOB/19
COURT	National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
Bench	A.I.S. Cheema, V.P. Singh, Alok Srivastva
Date of Decision	16 March, 2020

Introduction

The case of George Vinci Thomas vs. Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd. & Ors marks a watershed moment in the application of insolvency law under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), notably in resolving conflicts between operational creditors and corporate debtors. This appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) stemmed from an application under Section 9 of the IBC filed by Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd., an operational creditor, against India Tech Private Limited, the corporate debtor. The appellant, George Vinci Thomas, contested the Adjudicating Authority’s (National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench) acceptance of this case based on pre-existing conflicts. 

The case relied mostly on consultation services provided by the operating creditor, which allegedly went unpaid. The appellant claimed that there were unresolved disagreements over the quality and performance of services given, which negated the operational debt’s legality. However, the NCLAT examined evidence such as email conversations and contractual clauses to assess whether there was a real disagreement and ultimately found no substantive grounds to oppose the operational creditor’s claims. 

This example demonstrates the need of properly established contractual agreements and good documentation in insolvency procedures. It also emphasizes the judiciary’s commitment to striking a balance between creditor rights and debtor safeguards under the IBC. By addressing the intricacies of “pre-existing disputes” and operational debt, the ruling helps to improve the procedural and substantive parts of India’s insolvency system.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The appellant, George Vinci Thomas, Managing Director of M/s. India Tech Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), has filed an appeal against a ruling made by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench. M/s. Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which gave rise to this case. The Operational Creditor asserted non-payment of ₹1,71,74,366, owing for consultation services supplied to the Corporate Debtor over several years.

Beginning in November 2015, the Operational Creditor, a consultant business specialized in financial, administrative, and operational system restructuring and reorganization, signed four consultation agreements with the Corporate Debtor. These agreements included a combination of retainer and success-based fees, with the goal of assisting the Corporate Debtor in resolving financial and operational issues. Despite providing services, the Operational Creditor stated that outstanding dues for the period March 2013 to February 2019 remained unpaid. On February 11, 2019, a demand letter was given, but the Corporate Debtor did not answer, causing the creditor to begin insolvency procedures.

In its defense, the Corporate Debtor claimed that the services provided were subpar and questioned the quality and usefulness of the consultant’s work. It claimed there was a pre-existing conflict, citing an email from January 21, 2018, that noted the lack of progress reports on the consultancy job. The appellant also cited related conflicts involving third-party organizations, such as M/s. Capedge Metals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Telsa Marketing Pvt. Ltd., to highlight the matter’s complexity and confusion.

The NCLT examined the material and concluded that the Corporate Debtor’s assertions of a pre-existing dispute were ambiguous and unsupported. The tribunal found no indication of a genuine disagreement about service quality and accepted the application under Section 9 of the IBC.

The appellant, who was dissatisfied with the verdict, filed an appeal with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), underlining the existence of conflicts and contesting the legitimacy of the operating debt. The case demonstrates the significance of comprehensive documentation and adherence to procedural norms under the IBC. 

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT 

1. Whether the presence of a pre-existing disagreement over the quality and extent of advisory services provided by the Operational Creditor was sufficient to reject the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Whether the Corporate Debtor’s assertion that there are no progress reports or deliverables impacts the legality of the claimed operational debt under the consultant agreements.
3. Whether the NCLT’s decision to allow the application under Section 9 met the IBC’s procedural and substantive criteria, considering the facts and arguments submitted by both parties.

 ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

Arguments by the petitioners

• The petitioner asserts that there is a valid disagreement over the quality of services provided by the operating creditor. Emails exchanged between the parties, notably in January 2018, show displeasure with the lack of progress and unfulfilled contractual responsibilities. These issues were made prior to the demand notice, showing the presence of a pre-existing conflict.
• The petitioner claims that the consultant agreements include ambiguous payment structure provisions, specifically the contrast between retainer fees and success-based compensation. The operational creditor’s inability to meet the success criteria outlined in the agreements raises concerns regarding their eligibility to the claimed sums. This uncertainty has fueled a disagreement about payment responsibilities.
• The petitioner notes that the operational creditor has regularly failed to produce the requisite progress reports on the services performed, as per the contractual arrangements. Despite repeated demands for milestone and deliverable updates, the operational creditor failed to cooperate, resulting in a breakdown of confidence and aggravating the disagreement.
• The petitioner emphasizes attempts to address the issue peacefully through settlement negotiations. Emails from the operational creditor seeking a settlement, including payback restrictions and the return of failed checks, show that all parties were aware of the contested nature of the debt. This readiness to bargain demonstrates that the debt was neither accepted nor unchallenged.
• The petitioner opposes the operating creditor’s claim of Rs. 1,71,74,366/-, claiming that it lacks evidence. There is no indication that the invoices match the services supposedly delivered. Due to a lack of documentation, the claim is speculative and inadequate to sustain acceptance of the insolvency petition.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The responder claims that no real dispute exists over the debt. The petitioner’s email conversations do not question the services given but rather request greater explanation. According to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), such requests do not constitute disputes.
• The respondent claims that the consultation agreements expressly require the payment of retainer fees regardless of the success of the services. The petitioner’s attempt to equate success-based incentives with retainer fees is deceptive since they are distinct components of the contractual provisions.
• The respondent claims that the petitioner neglected to challenge the obligation immediately. Despite several warnings and the issuing of a demand notice, the petitioner did not raise any objections or give proof of a prior disagreement, suggesting that the debt was acknowledged.
• The responder backs up their claim with appropriate proof, including invoices for services provided over several years. The petitioner’s omission to submit specific concerns to these bills reinforces the respondent’s contention that the debt is valid.
• The respondent contends that any concerns expressed by the petitioner, such as progress reports or settlement negotiations, are unconnected to the underlying debt. The petitioner’s inability to respect the agreements renders the claim legitimate under the IBC, justifying the start of insolvency procedures.
• The respondent determines that the Adjudicating Authority correctly allowed the petition because the debt remains outstanding, above the IBC level, and is uncontested in any relevant way.

DECISION

In George Vinci Thomas vs Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) considered whether the presence of a pre-existing dispute disqualified an insolvency application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). The appellant, George Vinci Thomas, contended that reservations about the quality of services supplied by the Operational Creditor, Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd., constituted a pre-existing dispute.

The NCLAT examined the evidence, which included emails and contractual wording, and determined that the purported conflicts were unclear and inadequate to invalidate the operating debt. The tribunal stated that, while the Corporate Debtor expressed concerns about service quality, they did not meet the IBC’s criteria for a pre-existing dispute, which needs solid evidence demonstrating a real disagreement. Furthermore, problems involving third-party firms were judged unrelated to the insolvency procedures. 

The NCLAT affirmed the NCLT’s decision to allow the insolvency application, emphasizing that imprecise or unfounded allegations of disagreement cannot hinder insolvency procedures. This decision upholds the IBC’s purpose of enabling efficient insolvency proceedings while respecting creditor interests.

The appeal was dismissed, highlighting the need for precise documentation and respect for IBC regulations in business disputes. 

CONCLUSION

The decision in George Vinci Thomas vs. Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd. & Ors highlights the onerous standards under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for demonstrating pre-existing disputes. The NCLAT determined that the Corporate Debtor’s assertions about service quality were ambiguous and lacked substantive proof, failing to fulfill the criteria for a real dispute. 

The judge correctly discarded references to third-party issues as irrelevant, emphasizing the need for accurate paperwork and prompt answers in insolvency proceedings. This decision upholds the IBC’s goal of achieving efficient and timely remedies while respecting creditor interests.

By establishing a high bar for using the pre-existing dispute defense, the decision improves the clarity and uniformity of insolvency law, fostering fairness and accountability in creditor-debtor interactions.