2018 (11) TMI 1771 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - This Tribunal is constrained to proceed with the matter ex parte in relation to the corporate debtor since the corporate debtor has not appeared though section 8 notice and the present application duly served on the corporate debtor and proof of service along with service affidavit is filed by the applicant making the service complete - The applicant has attached the copy of the bank statement of the HDFC Bank in compliance with the requirement of section 9(3)(c) of the IBC, 2016 - The registered office of the corporate debtor is situated in New Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application. Thus, the present application is complete and the applicant is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt, and fulfilment of requirements under section 9(5) of the Code. Hence, the present application is admitted. Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
- Application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of corporate insolvency process.
- Default in payment of operational debt by the corporate debtor.
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the application.
- Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Analysis:
1. The application was filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by an operational creditor seeking to initiate the corporate insolvency process against the respondent company. The applicant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, detailed the debt due and payable by the respondent company, including interest, and provided evidence of various invoices raised.

2. Despite multiple requests and reminders for payment, the respondent company failed to clear the outstanding amount, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 8 of the Code. The respondent acknowledged the debt by depositing TDS on the outstanding bills but did not make the payment or respond to the demand notice, prompting the application to unfold the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

3. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte as the respondent did not appear despite being served with notices and the application. The applicant fulfilled the requirements under the Code, including submitting the bank statement as per section 9(3)(c), establishing the default in payment beyond doubt, leading to the admission of the application.

4. Following the admission of the application under section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016, a moratorium was imposed on the respondent company as per section 14(1), prohibiting various actions against the corporate debtor. The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to oversee the process and directed necessary steps to be taken under relevant sections of the Code.

5. The Tribunal communicated the order to the applicant, corporate debtor, and the appointed IRP, ensuring compliance and record-keeping. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the application was established due to the location of the respondent company's registered office in New Delhi.

In conclusion, the judgment detailed the process of admitting the application for corporate insolvency, highlighting the default in payment by the respondent, imposition of a moratorium, appointment of an IRP, and compliance with statutory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.