2018 (7) TMI 2233 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Corporate Applicant - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - On reading the Petition and the supporting documents annexed with the Petition, this Bench is of the view that the Corporate Applicant has committed default and the Petition contains the particulars as required u/ s 10 of the Code. Hence, this Bench hereby admits this petition, declaring moratorium. Application admitted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
2. Default amounts due to Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors.
3. Sanctioned loans and facilities by financial institutions.
4. Appointment of Insolvency Resolution Professional.
5. Admittance of the Petition and declaration of moratorium.

Analysis:
1. The Company Petition was filed by a Corporate Applicant seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Petition included details of the registered office of the Corporate Applicant, the Special Resolution passed by shareholders, and authorization by the Board of Directors to file the necessary application under the Code.

2. The Corporate Applicant disclosed default amounts due to Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors. It was revealed that a significant sum was due to Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, leading to the initiation of the insolvency resolution process.

3. Details were provided regarding the sanctioned loans and facilities by financial institutions, including Janaseva Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune, and Pune People's Co-operative Bank Ltd, Pune. The Petition included information about the Cash Credit Facility and Term Loan sanctioned by these institutions, along with related documents such as sanction letters and statements of accounts.

4. An Intervener application was filed by the financial institutions, suggesting the appointment of a specific Insolvency Resolution Professional. The suggested professional was accepted by the Petitioner, and the Bench approved the appointment of Ms. Anagha Anasingaraju as the Interim Resolution Professional to carry out the functions under the Code.

5. After reviewing the Petition and supporting documents, the Bench admitted the Petition, declaring a moratorium with specific directions. The moratorium included prohibitions on legal actions against the Corporate Applicant, continuity of essential goods or services supply, and appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The order of moratorium was to be in effect until the completion of the insolvency resolution process or until other specified conditions were met, as outlined in the Code.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, detailing the grounds for the initiation of the insolvency resolution process, default amounts, sanctioned loans, appointment of professionals, and the declaration of a moratorium to facilitate the resolution process effectively.