9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1572 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - Initiation of CIRP - outstanding debt to be recovered from the Corporate Debtor - Section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor that prior to the notice under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, no dispute was raised remains unrebutted - HELD THAT - This Bench is satisfied that the alleged dispute is a mere eyewash and an attempt to derail the Financial Creditor's entitlement to initiate the present proceedings. As the Financial Creditor has not proposed the name of any Resolution Professional matter is referred to the IBBI to propose a suitable name. To come up on 24th August, 2017.
Issues:
- Petition filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for outstanding debt recovery from Corporate Debtor. - Dispute regarding payment for work executed and certification of bills. - Objection raised by Corporate Debtor on the authority of the person initiating proceedings. - Allegation of incomplete work and non-payment by Corporate Debtor. - Arguments on completion of work and payments made by both parties. - Dispute regarding Pile Integrity Test and completion of job assigned. - Financial Creditor's claim of baseless disputes raised by Corporate Debtor. - Appointment of Resolution Professional by IBBI. Issue 1: Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code The petition was filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code seeking recovery of outstanding debt from the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Creditor had executed work as per a contract and raised running bills, but the Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment after the 4th bill, leading to the petition. Issue 2: Dispute over Payment and Certification of Bills The Financial Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments for work done and certified only up to the 7th bill, deliberately not certifying the 8th bill. Despite reminders and partial payments, the Corporate Debtor did not clear the dues, leading to a halt in work. Issue 3: Objection on Authority of the Person Initiating Proceedings The Corporate Debtor objected to the proceedings, citing lack of proper authorization for initiating legal actions. The Financial Creditor later filed the required Board Resolution authorizing the initiation of insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. Issue 4: Allegation of Incomplete Work and Non-Payment The Corporate Debtor alleged that the Financial Creditor failed to complete the assigned job and conduct essential tests, leading to non-settlement of the final bill. They argued that more than 70% of the payment had already been made, and they might need to recover money for incomplete work. Issue 5: Dispute over Pile Integrity Test and Job Completion The Corporate Debtor claimed that the Financial Creditor did not conduct the Pile Integrity Test as required, hindering further work progress. They argued that the Financial Creditor's reliance on the contract terms was invalid due to incomplete testing. Issue 6: Baseless Disputes Raised by Corporate Debtor The Financial Creditor contended that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor were baseless, vexatious, and intended to delay the proceedings. They highlighted the lack of dispute raised before the notice under the Companies Act, indicating the Corporate Debtor's attempt to create a sham defense. Issue 7: Appointment of Resolution Professional As the Financial Creditor did not propose a Resolution Professional, the matter was referred to the IBBI to suggest a suitable candidate. The Tribunal admitted the petition, and a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code was imposed with immediate effect. This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the arguments and submissions made by both parties before the National Company Law Tribunal in New Delhi.
|
