Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 543 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - The corporate debtor is having outstanding debt liability towards payment of materials were supplied to it and utilized by it for a sum of ₹ 9,42,841/- such amount is obviously is more than of one lakh, hence, such attracts triggering of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), in respect of the corporate debtor - That apart, the corporate debtor did not deny specifically and categorically about its loan liability for making payment nor paid the balance payment nor refused goods supplied, but utilized the same. Therefore, the corporate debtor is liable to make payment of the aforesaid amount, wherein, the corporate debtor has failed. Thus, the default of outstanding dues has been occurred. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - As in this matter, the remaining amount is of ₹ 9,42,841/- as against balance due as on 22.09.2017 and the present IB Petition is filed in the year of 2018. Hence, it is found to be filed well within the limitation. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Declaration of moratorium under Section 13(1) read with Section 14 of the I.B. Code, 2016. 3. Public announcement of the initiation of CIRP and submission of claims. 4. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 5. Allegations of supply of low-quality and defective material by the Petitioner. 6. Compliance with procedural requirements and filing of documents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP): The Petitioner, M/s. Jay Manak Steels, filed the I.B. Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Yogi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner claimed that it supplied steel goods worth ?27,17,818/- to the Corporate Debtor, out of which ?17,74,977/- was paid, leaving an outstanding amount of ?9,42,841/- as of 22.09.2017. The Petitioner issued a demand notice on 06.04.2018, which was ignored by the Corporate Debtor, compelling the Petitioner to file the present petition. 2. Declaration of Moratorium: The Petitioner sought a moratorium against the Corporate Debtor under Section 13(1) read with Section 14 of the I.B. Code, 2016. The Tribunal, upon admitting the petition, declared a moratorium prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits, transferring or disposing of assets, and recovery of property by owners or lessors during the moratorium period. 3. Public Announcement and Submission of Claims: The Petitioner requested an order for public announcement of the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and to call for the submission of claims under Section 13(1) read with Section 15 of the I.B. Code, 2016. The Tribunal directed the Interim Resolution Professional to make the public announcement soon after receiving an authenticated copy of the order. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP): The Petitioner proposed the name of Mr. Shalabh Kumar Daga as the IRP, who consented to act in this capacity. The Tribunal appointed Mr. Daga as the IRP and directed him to adhere to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, including making public announcements and performing duties under Sections 18, 20, and 21. 5. Allegations of Low-Quality and Defective Material: The Corporate Debtor opposed the petition, alleging that the Petitioner supplied low-quality and defective materials. However, the Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor did not produce any evidence to support these claims and had not raised any objections during the communications. The Petitioner provided rebuttal documents, including emails and WhatsApp screenshots, showing that the Corporate Debtor did not dispute the quality of the goods at the time of supply. 6. Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The Corporate Debtor contended that the petition was not filed in the prescribed proforma and lacked original documents. Despite initial delays and objections, the Tribunal allowed the amendments to the petition and found it to be complete and filed within the limitation period. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Innoventive Industries vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., affirming that the petition met the requirements for admission. Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the I.B. Petition, finding that the Corporate Debtor had an outstanding debt liability of ?9,42,841/-. The Tribunal declared a moratorium, appointed Mr. Shalabh Kumar Daga as the IRP, and directed the IRP to make public announcements and follow the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The petition was found to be complete and deserving of admission based on the facts and legal precedents.
|