2019 (8) TMI 1580 - 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 - The Respondent failed to avail the opportunity given by the Adjudicating Authority and also did not file any Statement of Objection to oppose alleged outstanding amount raised in the Company Petition. Therefore, it is deemed that the Corporate Debtor has nothing to oppose about the amount claimed by the Petitioner. The instant application is filed strictly in accordance with the extant provisions of the Code and debt and default is established by the Financial Creditor by submitting substantial evidence in support of the claim and also suggested a qualified Resolution Professional namely Shri Raghunathan Krishnasamy, with Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00419/2017-18/11200, who also filed written Consent in Form-2 dated 18.02.2019 and necessary declaration. Therefore the said IRP is eligible to be appointed as IRP in this case. Hence, the instant Company Petition is fit case to admit by initiating CIRP appointing by IRP, and declaring moratorium etc. in respect of the Corporate Debtor. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
2. Default in loan repayment
3. Admissibility of the petition under Section 7 of IBC, 2016
4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)
5. Declaration of moratorium

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):
The petition was filed by Corporation Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, seeking to initiate CIRP against M/s. Amintha Infrastructure Private Limited. The petition was based on the ground that the Corporate Debtor had defaulted on a loan amounting to ?7,17,03,414 as of 01.07.2015, including interest.

2. Default in Loan Repayment:
The Corporate Debtor had entered into a Joint Development Agreement to develop land into Row Houses and had secured a term loan of ?6.60 Crores from the Financial Creditor for this purpose. Additionally, a vehicle loan of ?20 Lakhs was also availed. The Corporate Debtor failed to service these loans correctly, resulting in the loan accounts being categorized as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). Despite notices issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Corporate Debtor did not regularize or clear the outstanding dues.

3. Admissibility of the Petition under Section 7 of IBC, 2016:
The Tribunal examined the petition in light of the provisions of Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, and relevant case laws. It was noted that the Financial Creditor had provided substantial evidence of the debt and default, including loan agreements, hypothecation deeds, and statements of account. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in M/s. Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank & Anr., which outlines the process and requirements for admitting a Section 7 application. The Tribunal was satisfied that the petition met the necessary criteria and that the debt and default were established.

4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Financial Creditor proposed Mr. Raghunathan Krishnasamy as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), who had given his written consent and necessary declaration. The Tribunal found him eligible and appointed him as the IRP for the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Amintha Infrastructure Private Limited.

5. Declaration of Moratorium:
The Tribunal declared a moratorium, prohibiting the following actions:
a) Institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.
b) Transfer, encumbrance, or disposal of any assets of the Corporate Debtor.
c) Foreclosure, recovery, or enforcement of any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor.
d) Recovery of any property by an owner or lessor.
e) Termination or suspension of the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor.
f) The moratorium shall be effective from the date of the order until the completion of the CIRP.

The Tribunal directed the IRP to follow all extant provisions of the IBC, 2016, and submit progress reports periodically. The Board of Directors and staff of the Corporate Debtor were instructed to cooperate fully with the IRP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the petition, initiated CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, appointed the IRP, and declared a moratorium, thereby providing a structured process for resolving the insolvency and protecting the interests of the Financial Creditor. The case was posted for the IRP's report on 10.10.2019.

← Previous Next →