Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (2) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (2) TMI 440 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
2. Debt arising from purchases of granite slabs and Marble Slabs by the Respondent.
3. Failure of Respondent to pay outstanding dues leading to demand notice under Section 8 of the Code.
4. Respondent's objections alleging forgery and manipulation by the Applicant.
5. Dispute regarding outstanding dues and existence of pre-existing dispute.
6. Compliance with requirements under Section 9(3)(c) of the IBC 2016.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent for non-payment of outstanding dues amounting to &8377; 38,92,229/-. The Applicant provided detailed information regarding the debt owed, including invoices and payment details, and sent a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code to the Respondent.

2. The debt in question arose from purchases of granite slabs and Marble Slabs made by the Respondent from the Applicant for construction purposes. Despite partial payments made by the Respondent, a significant balance remained unpaid, leading to the initiation of the insolvency proceedings by the Applicant.

3. The Respondent raised objections alleging forgery and manipulation by the Applicant, claiming that a contractor appointed by the Respondent in connivance with the Applicant defrauded them. However, the Tribunal observed that the suit filed by the Respondent against the contractor was not against the Applicant in the present application, and therefore, could not be considered a pre-existing dispute.

4. The issue of dispute regarding the outstanding dues was thoroughly examined, with the Tribunal noting that the Respondent failed to provide concrete evidence or specific details to substantiate their claims of malpractice by the Applicant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Respondent to prove the absence of outstanding dues rather than making unsubstantiated allegations.

5. In compliance with Section 9(3)(c) of the IBC 2016, the Applicant provided bank statements and a certificate confirming the operational debt in their books of accounts. The Tribunal found the application complete and admitted it, establishing the default in payment of operational debt and fulfilling the requirements under Section 9(5) of the Code.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional and directed the Operational Creditor to deposit a sum with the IRP to cover expenses. The moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Code was imposed on the Respondent, with further directions regarding the resolution process and communication of the order to relevant parties.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates