9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1339 - Tri - IBCMaintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor has committed default of the Principal amount alongwith the interest - Existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT - The instant Company Petition is filed in order to recover the alleged outstanding amount rather to justify to initiate CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor. Moreover, the Respondent has also agreed to pay the agreed amount in three instalments and also paid part payment. It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount but it can be invoked to initiate CIRP for justified reasons as per the Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT , has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be opinion that the Petitioner failed to justify that the instant petition is filed to initiate CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor, which is the main object of the Code and thus it is liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 based on default by the Corporate Debtor. Analysis: Issue 1: Initiation of CIRP The case involved C.P(IB) No. 151/BB/2019 filed by M/s.Bellgeo Enterprises Limited (Operational Creditor) seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s.Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Debtor) for defaulting on a principal amount and accrued interest. The total outstanding amount was claimed to be &8377; 39,04,621/-. The matter was listed for admission on multiple dates, and both parties presented their arguments before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Settlement Offer The Respondent, represented by Shri Varun.S, submitted a Memo on 10.10.2019, acknowledging the debt and agreeing to pay the due amount of &8377; 38,37,905/- in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment was already paid, and the remaining amount was to be settled. The Respondent argued that the petition was more for recovery than for initiating CIRP, as a substantial amount had already been paid towards the debt. Issue 3: Legal Analysis After considering the arguments and provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Tribunal concluded that the petition seemed to be more focused on recovering the outstanding amount rather than justifying the initiation of CIRP. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited, it was emphasized that the Code is not meant for mere recovery proceedings but for initiating CIRP for valid reasons. As the Petitioner failed to establish a valid reason for CIRP initiation and the Respondent had agreed to pay the outstanding amount in instalments, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed C.P. (IB) No. 151/BB/2019, stating that it was not a suitable case for initiating CIRP under the Code. However, the order did not prevent the Petitioner from seeking remedies through other legal avenues if the Respondent failed to fulfill the payment commitments. No costs were awarded in this matter. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, legal reasoning applied, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
