9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1475 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The applicant has filed an affidavit under Section 9 (3) (b) stating that no notice of dispute from the Respondent is received - The applicant has stated that total debt due and payable is Rs. ₹ 1,14,69,600/- - The applicant has attached the copy of Bank statements issued by Axis Bank for relevant period in compliance with the requirement of Section 9(3)(c) of the IBC 2016 - The registered office of respondent is situated in New Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application. 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 which has been admitted by the Corporate Debtor while making submission before the Tribunal - The requirements of Section 9(5) of the Code are complied, hence, the present application is admitted - Moratorium declared.
Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency process. 2. Operational Creditor's claim against Corporate Debtor for outstanding payments. 3. Failure of Respondent to pay outstanding dues leading to demand notice under Section 8 of IBC. 4. Acceptance of notice by Respondent's counsel without filing a reply. 5. Compliance with statutory requirements under Section 9(3)(b) and 9(3)(c) of IBC. 6. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the application. 7. Admission of application, appointment of Interim Resolution Professional, and imposition of moratorium. Analysis: 1. The application was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Operational Creditor, M/S Emperos Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor, M/S Earthcon Infracon Private Limited. The application was supported by relevant documents and details of the outstanding debt owed by the Respondent. 2. The Operational Creditor alleged that despite supplying goods and services to the Respondent as per agreed terms, the Respondent failed to make the payments within the stipulated time frame. The Operational Creditor issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC for the outstanding amount, which the Respondent failed to pay, leading to the initiation of the present application. 3. The Respondent, despite accepting the notice through its counsel, did not file a reply or raise any dispute regarding the outstanding debt. The Operational Creditor submitted an affidavit stating the non-receipt of any notice of dispute from the Respondent, further solidifying the claim of default in payment by the Corporate Debtor. 4. The Tribunal found the application to be complete and admitted it based on the evidence provided by the Operational Creditor, establishing the default in payment beyond doubt. The Respondent's admission of liability during the proceedings further supported the decision to admit the application under Section 9(5) of the IBC. 5. In light of the admission of the application, the Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process. The imposition of a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Code was ordered, prohibiting certain actions against the Respondent during the resolution process, with specific provisions of Sections 14(2) to 14(3) coming into effect. 6. The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the application due to the location of the Respondent's registered office in New Delhi. The necessary statutory requirements under Section 9(3)(b) and 9(3)(c) of the IBC were met, including the submission of bank statements and other relevant documents supporting the claim. 7. The order for admission of the application, appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional, and the imposition of the moratorium were communicated to the parties involved, ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
