M/s. SORIL Infra Resources Ltd. Respondent Present: For Appellants Shri Vijay Nair, Shri Prashant Jam, Ms. Aparna Malhotra and Ms. Sanyogita Jam, Advocates. For Respondent Shri Chetan Sharma, Shri Abhishek Swaroop and Shri Rudreshwar Singh, Advocates. JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against order dated 24th March, 2017 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'I & B Code') for initiation the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the 'Corporate Debtor' has been rejected on the ground that there is an existence of dispute pending adjudication between the parties. 2. In order to decide the controversy in its proper perspective, it will be necessary to notice the material facts. 2 3. Appellants rented the premises, rent of which was payable by respondent Corporate. Debtor pursuant to Lease Deed dated 23rd November, 2005 but having not paid, the parties invoked arbitratiOn clause. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Justice (Dr) Mukundakam Sharma (Retired) was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes arising out of Lease Deed dated 23rd November, 2005 between the appellants and the respondent. 4. The Arbitrator passed an award on 9th September, 2016 in favour of the appellants granting the following relief: "a. Rs.2,67,52,283/ on account of rend from 1.4.2008 upto 22.3.2010 along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 23.3.2010 upto the date of the Award. b. Rs. 1,11,56,145/on account of damages equivalent to rend for a period of 6 months from 22.3.2010. C. Future interest @12% per annum on the amounts, as calculated above, from the date of the award till the date of realization." 5. The respondent then challenged the award under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act') with the prayer to set aside the award. The application preferred by respondent under Sec. 34 was dismissed on 19th December, 2016 affirming the award, 6. As a consequence, the appellants issued a demand notice dated 13th January, 2017 under Sec. 8 of the I & B Code. In response to the demand notice, respondent filed a reply on 27th January, 2017 raising objection on the ground that there is an existence of dispute about 'Operational Debt'. It was also stated that the appeal bearing No. FA(OS)(COMM) 20 of 2017 has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act against the order dated 19th December, 2016 before the Ld. Single Judge. It was also pointed out that an execution proceedings to recover the amount due under the award dated 9th September, 2016 have also been initiated and are pending consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1st appellant is to be regarded as an "operational creditor" within the meaning of Sec 9 nw sub sections (20) and (21) of Section 5 of the I&B Code. A reference has also been invited to the definition of the words 'debt' and 'default' as defined in Section 3(11) and Section 3(12) of the I&B Code. 8. According to learned counsel for the appellants the award passed by the learned Arbitrator had attained finality as the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has been dismissed on 19th December, 2016 It was further contended that expression "arbitration proceedings" used in Sec. 8(2)(a) of the I&B Code cannot be deemed to be pending because under Sec 21 of the Arbitration Act, arbitration proceedings commenced on the date on which request for referring such a dispute to arbitration was received by the respondent. The said proceeding came to an end in terms of Sec. 32 on the date of announcing the final award or by an order of the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with subsection (2)