9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1565 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational debt - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - There was no representation from the Respondent, inspite of notices served on it and also paper publication. The respondent was set ex-parte on 18.07.2019, as the service of notice was held sufficient. There was no contest from the respondent with regard to the debt and to the interest claimed thereon. The debt claimed in the petition is an unpaid operational debt, as is clearly evident from the invoices and the notice under section 8 of the Code. The petition filed under Section 9(2) of the Code is complete in all respects. This Authority has thus no hesitation in admitting the petition. The Company Petition be and he same is admitted, ex parte - Moratorium declared.
Issues:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for default in repaying operational debt. Analysis: The judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, involved a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent for defaulting on an operational debt amounting to ?8,61,988.32, including interest. The Petitioner, engaged in providing transport support services, had a contractual understanding with the Respondent for lifting products ex terminal. Despite making part payment, an outstanding amount of ?5,98,603 remained unpaid as of a certain date. The Petitioner issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code, followed by the present petition before the NCLT, seeking interest at 24% and proposing an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for appointment. The Petitioner diligently served the Respondent with notices via courier and speed post, with no response from the Respondent. Despite the service of notice and paper publication, the Respondent remained absent during the proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority set the Respondent ex-parte on the grounds of sufficient notice service. The Respondent did not contest the debt or the interest claimed, establishing the unpaid operational debt as evident from invoices and the Section 8 notice. The petition under Section 9(2) of the Code was found to be complete, leading the Authority to admit the petition ex-parte. The judgment ordered the admission of the Company Petition ex-parte, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent. The appointed IRP was directed to take charge of the Respondent's management immediately and proceed with the CIRP in accordance with relevant sections of the Code and associated Rules. A moratorium was declared under Section 14 of the Code for the Respondent, and the Directors, Promoters, or other associated individuals were instructed to cooperate with the IRP. The Registry was tasked with communicating the order to the parties involved, and compliance was directed for necessary actions.
|
