2019 (4) TMI 2001 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - This Petition is filed by operational creditor under section 9 of I B Code. Operational creditor filed Form-5 and furnished the information with regard to the operational debt which is committed default by corporate debtor - The operational creditor is to establish that the application made under subsection (2) of 9 is complete and that there is no repayment and that the invoices or notices for payment to corporate debtor has been delivered by operational creditor and that no notice of dispute has been received by operational creditor. Further operational creditor is to establish that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against proposed RP. The notice was served on the corporate debtor. Postal track record is filed through Memo. Learned counsel contended that corporate debtor has not replied or failed to defend. The claim is submitted within period of time prescribed under Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, the claim is within limitation. There is no representation or reply by the Corporate debtor. Corporate debtor was served with notice before admission however, corporate debtor remained absent and it did not contest the claim. The Operational creditor is able to establish through documents that corporate debtor committed default of operational debt. The application is complete and is liable to be admitted. Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
1. Default in payment of consulting services by Corporate Debtor.
2. Petition filed under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Compliance with statutory demand notices.
4. Lack of response from Corporate Debtor.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to a petition filed by an individual against a company for defaulting on payment of consulting services. The petitioner sought relief under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to non-payment of a substantial amount for services provided during the financial year 2017-2018.

2. The petitioner established that the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the outstanding amount despite statutory demand notices being issued as required under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioner provided evidence such as demand notices, invoice copies, and bank statements to support the claim of default by the Corporate Debtor.

3. The Operational Creditor, through its counsel, presented the case before the Adjudicating Authority, highlighting the completeness of the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It was emphasized that no repayment had been made, and all necessary notices and invoices had been duly delivered to the Corporate Debtor without any dispute or response.

4. The Corporate Debtor did not contest the claim or respond to the notices served, leading to a lack of representation or defense in the proceedings. The absence of any reply from the Corporate Debtor further strengthened the case for admitting the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

5. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, declaring a moratorium and appointing an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The judgment outlined specific directions regarding the moratorium period, prohibition of suits against the Corporate Debtor, continuation of essential services, and the appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional to manage the resolution process effectively.