2017 (8) TMI 1573 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 read with Rule 6 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016 - Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment of outstanding amount - HELD THAT - In the case on hand the applicant has complied with all requirements. Operationa debt is due from the corporate debtor to the operational creditor. Operational creditor filed written communication of interim insolvency professional which shows there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against him. For the above reasons this application is admitted. This authority hereby appoints Mr. Hemanshu Kapadia Practising Company Secretary Office No. 12 14th Floor Building No. 3 Navjivan Commercial Premises Co-op Society Lamington Road Mumbai 400 008 as interim resolution professional. This authority directs the applicant to make public announcement of the initiation of corporate insolvency process and call for the submission of claims under Section 15. Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for corporate insolvency resolution process initiation. Dispute raised by the corporate debtor regarding the quality of goods supplied.

Analysis:
- The operational creditor filed an application under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor. The application was supported by details of outstanding amounts, notices issued, and relevant documents like invoices, delivery challans, and bank statements.

- The application was found to be complete, with all necessary documents and recommendations for an interim resolution professional. The evidence presented by the operational creditor clearly indicated that the debt was due from the corporate debtor, establishing operational debt.

- The dispute raised by the corporate debtor regarding the quality of goods supplied was contested. The operational creditor argued that the dispute was raised after the application was filed and lacked specifics, deeming it a malafide dispute. Citing precedents, it was emphasized that disputes must be bona fide and raised with substantial grounds before demand notices.

- The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal decisions highlighted the importance of raising disputes with sufficient particulars and being bona fide in nature. The absence of a timely dispute by the corporate debtor, as evidenced by correspondence and lack of responses to notices, supported the rejection of the dispute raised post-application filing.

- After thorough consideration of the arguments and evidence, the authority admitted the application, appointed an interim resolution professional, and declared a moratorium under Section 13 of the Code. The moratorium prohibited certain actions against the corporate debtor and ensured the continuation of essential goods and services supply during the resolution process.

- The order of moratorium was to be in force until the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, with specific provisions regarding essential services and public announcements. The application was disposed of accordingly, with communication of the order to relevant parties.