2019 (9) TMI 1363 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the Office of the Corporate Debtor is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the sum as claimed by the Financial Creditor as against the Corporate Debtor exceeds ₹ 1 lakh being the prescribed limit fixed under the provisions of IBC, 2016, we are not in a position to entertain this petition and the default is also in existence as evident from the reply of the Corporate Debtor and upon notice issued under SARFAESI by the petitioner and the Corporate Debtor sent a reply and in these circumstances, we are having no hesitation in admitting this petition and unfolding the CIR process. The Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) proposed by the Financial Creditor in Part-Ill of the petition has also been filed and as contained in Form -II of (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (Page 21 22 of the typed set). However, it is seen from the said Form that no disclosure has been made in Clause No.6 of the said Form. However, the IRP proposed by the Financial Creditor is appointed as the IRP to take care of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) by a Financial Creditor (FC) against a Corporate Debtor.

Detailed Analysis:
The Petition filed by Punjab National Bank as a Financial Creditor sought the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor under the IBC, 2016. The application disclosed the Financial Creditor represented by Mr. Sibananda Bhanja, with the Authorized Representative granted Power of Attorney. Details of the Corporate Debtor, including incorporation date, authorized and paid-up capital, and the proposed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), Mr. Mahesh Bansal, were provided. The application also outlined the financial debt details, default circumstances, and restructuring history, including a restructured amount table. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt but failed to appear in the proceedings, despite being duly served notice. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter due to the absence of the Corporate Debtor within its jurisdiction and the existence of the default as confirmed by the reply under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Tribunal admitted the petition, initiated the CIR process, and appointed the proposed IRP, directing necessary disclosures within three days.

The Tribunal admitted the petition under Section 9(5) of IBC, 2016, imposing a moratorium effective immediately. Orders were communicated to the Operational Creditor, Corporate Debtor, and IBBI for records. The appointed IRP was instructed to receive a copy of the order promptly to assume office. The Registry was directed to inform IBBI of the order for records. The Application was disposed of with the mentioned directions, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and stakeholder notifications.