9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1881 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability 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 - The Petitioner filed Certificate issued by IDBI Bank as required under Section 9(3)(c) of the Code and also filed Affidavit stating that no dispute has been raised by the Corporate Debtor - The Counsel for the Corporate Debtor appeared for the two hearings on 13.03.2018 and 19.03.2018, failed to appear on 03.04.2018, 05.04.2018, 13.04.2018 and 17.04.2018. Since the date of default was wrongly mentioned in the Petition the Counsel for the Petitioner was directed to rectify the defect in the Form 5 and serve a copy on the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, the Petitioner complied with the direction and filed proof of service, however on 17.04.2018 also there was no representation on the side of the Corporate Debtor. This Bench having satisfied with the Application filed by the operational creditor which is in compliance of provisions of section B 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admits this Application declaring Moratorium. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor for default in payment. 2. Compliance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 3. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. 4. Declaration of Moratorium and its implications. 5. Admission of the Company Petition. Analysis: 1. The Company Petition was filed by Vijisan Exports Pvt. Ltd. to trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Ciemme Jewels Limited for defaulting on a payment of ?1,89,76,252 on 28.04.2015. The Petitioner, engaged in the diamond business, had supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor and issued an invoice for ?2,03,01,252, of which only ?13,25,000 was paid, leaving a significant outstanding amount. Despite a demand notice and the absence of any dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor, the payment remained unsettled due to the Corporate Debtor citing financial difficulties. 2. The Petitioner submitted the necessary Certificate from IDBI Bank and an Affidavit confirming the absence of any dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor. The Counsel for the Corporate Debtor attended some hearings but failed to appear on multiple occasions. Upon rectifying a defect in the petition, the Petitioner complied with the directions, yet the Corporate Debtor remained unrepresented. 3. Mr. Vinodkumar Ambavat was mentioned as the Interim Resolution Professional in the Petition. The Tribunal, satisfied with the application's compliance with the Code's provisions, admitted the Petition, thereby initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 4. The Tribunal declared a Moratorium with specific directions, including prohibiting suits against the Corporate Debtor, ensuring the supply of essential goods or services continues, and specifying the effect of the moratorium until the completion of the resolution process or liquidation approval. The public announcement of the resolution process was mandated, and Mr. Vinodkumar Ambavat was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the proceedings. 5. Consequently, the Company Petition was admitted, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order to both parties, marking the formal initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor.
|
