9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1447 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - During the course of the submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal by the CD that they have remitted a sum of ₹ 13,23,953/- vide RTG clearing on 08.8.2019. When this Tribunal confronted, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner of the Order dated 22.7.2019 and as to how the Petitioner, when the Petition is pending before this Tribunal, the Petitioner has accepted the payment in relation to the claim, to which, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to explain that even after the payment has been made, a claim still exists in a sum in excess of Rs. one lakh which remains unpaid and in the circumstances, this Tribunal has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this petition and dispose off the petition on merits. Thus, having accepted the payment from the CD, it is incumbent to the petitioner to either withdraw the petition and not to proceed with the petition or alternatively, should not have accepted the amounts at all more so it was posted for arguments and to persist with the Petition based on representation. However, the Petitioner having chosen to accept the payment in relation to the claim and even though in part and for the balance of the claim seeks to proceed with the Petition, to which, we are not in a position or inclined to accede to the request. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Filing of Petition under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 by Operational Creditor against Corporate Debtor for default in services provided. 2. Details of Petitioner Company, Corporate Debtor, and Interim Resolution Professional. 3. Transactions giving rise to operational debt and default amount claimed. 4. Response from Corporate Debtor disputing some invoices and partial payment made. 5. Acceptance of partial payment by Petitioner during proceedings and its impact on the petition. Issue 1: Filing of Petition under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 The Petition was filed by V-Con Telecom Towers (P) Ltd as an Operational Creditor against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited for default in services provided. The Petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) due to the alleged default arising in relation to the transactions of services provided to the Corporate Debtor. Issue 2: Details of Parties and Interim Resolution Professional The Petition contained details of the Petitioner Company and Corporate Debtor, including the date of incorporation and paid-up capital of the Corporate Debtor. Mr. Aakash Singhal was proposed as the Interim Resolution Professional in Part-III of the application. Issue 3: Transactions and Default Amount Part-IV of the Petition detailed the transactions giving rise to the operational debt, with the claimed default amount being Rs. 21,02,449. The amount was stated to remain outstanding from the issuance of the demand notice from 17.1.2019. Issue 4: Response from Corporate Debtor The Corporate Debtor, in its reply, admitted liability in relation to 22 Invoices but disputed 3 other Invoices. It was noted that a sum of Rs. 14,27,522 had been processed and passed by the Corporate Debtor, and disputes regarding payments to a group company of the Petitioner were raised. The Corporate Debtor contested the default under Section 5(20) of the IBC, 2016 and the classification of the Petitioner as an Operational Creditor. Issue 5: Acceptance of Partial Payment During the proceedings, the Corporate Debtor made a partial payment, which was accepted by the Petitioner. However, the Tribunal highlighted that accepting payment while the petition was pending contradicted established principles that creditors should not initiate IBC proceedings solely for recovery. The Tribunal dismissed the petition as the Petitioner chose to accept the payment and still proceeded with the petition, despite the partial payment made by the Corporate Debtor. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition without costs due to the Petitioner's acceptance of partial payment and subsequent decision to continue with the petition, contrary to the principles governing IBC proceedings.
|
