9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1868 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - financial creditor - existence of debt of dispute or not - Time limitation - HELD THAT - By order of the hon'ble High Court, the claim of the petitioner is to be decided by the outcome in a civil suit by a civil court under the CPC. The civil suit, filed under the order of the hon'ble High Court, was rejected as the claim is barred by limitation and the appeal against the order in civil suit is still pending. In light of the above facts, it is clear that the existence of debt is to be decided by the civil court and unless the outcome of the civil suit is reached, the claim of the petitioner is sub judice, and cannot be said to be due. For a petition under section 7 of the I and B Code as per the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank 2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT this Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the debt , which may also include a disputed claim, is due. Debt may not be due if it is not payable in law. If this Tribunal is satisfied that the debt is not due, then it may reject the petition. This Tribunal is of the view that the claim of the petitioner is contingent upon the final decision of the civil suit and unless the same is decided the debt of the petitioner cannot be said to be in existence and due - there is no question of default in repayment of debt. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Existence and due status of debt in the case. 3. Interpretation of the judgment in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank regarding the due status of debt. Issue 1: Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: The petitioner filed a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the corporate debtor for default in repayment of the principal amount and interest. The petitioner claimed to have granted a loan to the corporate debtor and initiated insolvency proceedings due to non-repayment. However, the corporate debtor contested the claim, leading to a legal dispute. Issue 2: Existence and Due Status of Debt: The petitioner's claim of debt against the corporate debtor was challenged in a civil suit, which was rejected on grounds of being barred by the law of limitation. The rejection of the civil suit implied that the claim of debt was not established and was not due. The Tribunal emphasized that unless the outcome of the civil suit is reached, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered due, as per the judgment in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank. Issue 3: Interpretation of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Judgment: The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank to determine the due status of debt in the present case. The judgment highlighted that for a financial creditor to trigger the insolvency process, the debt must be due, which may include a disputed claim. The Tribunal noted that the debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a debt being due, there was no default in repayment, leading to the rejection of the petition for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process. The judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench involved a detailed analysis of the petitioner's claim, the rejection of the civil suit, and the interpretation of the due status of debt as per the Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank judgment. The Tribunal rejected the petition for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process, emphasizing that the claim of the petitioner was contingent upon the final decision of the civil suit and could not be considered due until then. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim, leaving the petitioner free to pursue its claim through the appropriate legal channels.
|
