2018 (2) TMI 1940 - Tri - Companies Law

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor defaulted in making repayment - debt due and payable - HELD THAT - The Petitioner filed copies of Invoices and copies of TDS Certificate and copy of Ledger Confirmation supplied by the Respondent Company to establish that an amount of ₹ 5, 14,650/ - is due from the Respondent during the period between 25.2.2013 to 26.3.2013. The amount claimed by the Petitioner from the Respondent is in respect of provision of services made to the Respondent Company from time to time. Therefore, Petitioner is an Operational Creditor. The documents filed by the Petitioner and the confirmation of balance by the Respondent show that the amount claimed in this Petition is due and payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner. The material on record also show that there is occurrence of default in payment of operational debt by the Respondent to the Petitioner. No dispute of dispute given to Respondent. No pre- existing brought on Record. This Petition is admitted under Section IO(4)(a) of the Code - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for triggering Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to non-payment of dues for services provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Petition for Insolvency Resolution Process
The Petitioner, a labor service provider, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Respondent, a company engaged in manufacturing necklaces, for non-payment of dues amounting to ?8,63,283. The Petitioner established the debt through invoices, TDS certificates, and ledger confirmations. Despite repeated demands and legal notices, the Respondent only paid ?3,40,000. The Petitioner issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code, which the Respondent failed to respond to, indicating a default in payment.

Issue 2: Operational Creditor and Default in Payment
The Petitioner claimed to be an operational creditor as the debt arose from providing labor services to the Respondent. The Respondent acknowledged the debt but failed to clear it. The Petitioner, having fulfilled all requirements under the Code, including serving notices and filing necessary documents, proved the existence of an operational debt and default in payment by the Respondent. The absence of objections from the Respondent further strengthened the case for insolvency resolution.

Issue 3: Admission of Petition and Appointment of Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional
After reviewing the documents and confirming the default in payment, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition under Section 10(4)(a) of the Code. Mr. Vinod Tarachand Agrawal was appointed as the Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional to oversee the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Authority directed the professional to initiate the resolution process, call for claims, and enforce a moratorium under Section 13(1)(a) of the Code.

Issue 4: Moratorium and Disposal of Application
The Adjudicating Authority ordered a moratorium, prohibiting legal actions against the corporate debtor, asset transfers, and recovery actions during the resolution process. Essential goods and services supply to the debtor were to continue uninterrupted. The moratorium was to remain in force until the completion of the resolution process. The application was disposed of without costs, with a copy of the order communicated to all relevant parties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal in response to the petition for insolvency resolution due to non-payment of dues by the Respondent to the Petitioner for services provided.