9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1698 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Corporate Debtor - Section 9 of IBC Code - HELD THAT - The dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor is spurious defence. Most of the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor during the hearing of the petition were not raised by the Corporate Debtor in the reply to demand notice served before filing of the petition and have been raised belatedly at the time of hearing - Further, the Corporate Debtor has stated its willingness to settle the accounts in case of discrepancies of accounts. Also, no documents have been provided regarding the debit note raised upon the Operational Creditor for adjustment of ₹ 19,97,563/-. The fact that bank certificate is not annexed in compliance of Section 9 (3)(c) of IBC has been held to be directory by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED VERSUS SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 2017 (12) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT - Therefore, this defence does not survive. For the petition fulfilling the requirements of Section 9, this petition deserves to be admitted - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
Company petition under Section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Operational Creditor against Corporate Debtor for non-payment. Discrepancies in amounts claimed, interest charges, and responses to demand notices. Dispute over outstanding dues, including claims of poor quality goods and debit notes. Compliance with Section 9 requirements, including the need for a bank certificate. Analysis: Issue 1: Company Petition under Section 9 of IBC The Operational Creditor filed a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment of &8377; 31,70,404, comprising principal and interest amounts. The petition aimed to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. Issue 2: Discrepancies in Amounts and Responses There were discrepancies in the amounts claimed by the Operational Creditor, the responses from the Corporate Debtor, and the invoices presented. The Operational Creditor alleged non-payment of &8377; 20,58,704, while the Corporate Debtor disputed this amount, claiming only &8377; 1,00,000 was owed and even enclosed a cheque for that amount. Issue 3: Dispute over Outstanding Dues The Corporate Debtor raised various defenses, including disputing the interest charges, lack of clarity in the demand notice, and discrepancies in the amounts claimed. They also mentioned a debit note related to poor quality goods supplied by a group concern of the Operational Creditor, which led to adjustments in the accounts. Issue 4: Compliance with Section 9 Requirements The Corporate Debtor contended that the petition was not maintainable due to the absence of a certificate from the creditor's financial institution. They also argued that a thorough inspection of the books of accounts of all involved parties was necessary to determine the exact amount of dues, which was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Conclusion The Tribunal found the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor to be a spurious defense, noting that most disputes were raised belatedly. The absence of documents regarding the debit note and the non-compliance with Section 9 requirements were also highlighted. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the petition under Section 9 of the IBC, declaring a moratorium and appointing an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the process. By issuing consequential directions, the Tribunal aimed to protect the interests of all parties involved and ensure a fair resolution process in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
