9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1665 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to pay the said outstanding amount - HELD THAT - The default as defined u/s. 3(12) of The Code is established. Demand Notice has been issued to the Respondent Debtor, however, the Respondent Debtor had not replied to the said Demand Notice within the prescribed time period of 10 days u/s 8(2) of The Code nor made the payment. Keeping the admitted facts in mind that the Operational Creditor had not received the outstanding Debt from the Corporate Debtor and that the formalities as prescribed under The Code have been completed by the Petitioner/ Operational Creditor, it is my conscientious view that this Petition deserves Admission . Application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Petition filed by Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Corporate Debtor for outstanding debt. 2. Default in payment by Corporate Debtor leading to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 3. Failure of Corporate Debtor to respond to Demand Notice within prescribed time period. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and commencement of Insolvency Process. Analysis: Issue 1: Petition filed by Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Corporate Debtor for outstanding debt. The Petitioner, an Operational Creditor, filed a petition invoking Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor to claim an outstanding operational debt of &8377;10,35,948. The debt arose from the supply of components by the Petitioner to the Corporate Debtor, as evidenced by multiple invoices issued by the Petitioner. Issue 2: Default in payment by Corporate Debtor leading to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Petitioner alleged that the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the outstanding debt despite repeated demands. Consequently, the Petitioner's Board of Directors resolved to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, as per the provisions of the Code. Issue 3: Failure of Corporate Debtor to respond to Demand Notice within prescribed time period. Despite issuing a Demand Notice in Form No.3, the Corporate Debtor did not reply within the stipulated 10-day period as required under the Code. The Corporate Debtor also did not make the payment, further establishing the default as defined under the Code. Issue 4: Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and commencement of Insolvency Process. The Petitioner proposed the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional, who was duly appointed after submitting consent and confirming the absence of any pending disciplinary proceedings. The admission of the Petition led to the declaration of a "Moratorium," initiating the Insolvency Process with the IRP tasked to oversee the Resolution Plan and compliance with the Order within the specified timeframe. In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the Petition, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process with the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The "Moratorium" period was declared to safeguard the assets of the Debtor, prohibiting the initiation of legal proceedings while ensuring the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor.
|
