9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1288 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking to declare the transaction of payment made by Corporate Debtor to Respondent No.1 as non-est in law - moratorium order as per section 14 of IBC - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 14(1) of the IB code, the corporate debtor or its management or agents cease to exist and only IRP is in control of the Corporate Debtor after initiation of CIRP of the corporate debtor. Accordingly, in the present case the payments made by the corporate debtor from the bank account are in gross violation of provisions al the code. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondents being the operational creditors must file their claim before the IRP/RP which be considered in the accordance with provisions of the code. Arguments cf Respondent No.1 that the said payment be allowed, merely on ground that the services were used by the corporate debtor in past as well as continues does not hold water in eyes of law as per the provisions of IBC clearly bars the same. Hence, this bench directs the respondent No. 1 to 5 herein to refund all payments received by them on 19.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 - Application allowed.
Issues:
Application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for declaring transactions as non-est in law and seeking refund from Respondents. Analysis: 1. Appointment of IRP: The Applicant, appointed as an IRP in a matter under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, filed an application seeking orders to declare multiple transactions as non-est in law and requesting refunds from Respondents. 2. Background and CIRP: The Applicant took over the affairs of the corporate debtor as per Section 17 of the IB Code and CIRP Regulations, confirmed as the RP in the 1st COC meeting. The payments in question were made to creditors before the Applicant's charge, for services availed prior to the CIRP period. 3. Details of Transactions: Payments made by the corporate debtor to various creditors on 19.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 were detailed, including amounts and descriptions. The Applicant found these payments to be in violation of the Code and sought recovery of the same. 4. Service of Notice and Replies: Respondents were served via courier and email, with Respondent No.1 contesting the application and filing a reply. Respondents 2 to 5 were proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance despite being served. 5. Respondent's Contentions: Respondent No.1 argued against the application, mentioning deductions for TDS and the significance of their services for the debtor's business continuity. They contested the reversal of only one transaction, citing procedural issues and the ongoing use of their services. 6. Judgment and Orders: The Tribunal, considering the Code's provisions, ruled in favor of the Applicant. It directed all Respondents to refund the amounts received from the corporate debtor on specified dates. The bench emphasized that the operational creditors must file claims with the IRP/RP as per the Code's provisions. 7. Conclusion: The application was allowed and disposed of, with specific refund orders issued to each Respondent. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the Code's provisions and the role of the IRP/RP in managing the affairs of the corporate debtor during the CIRP process.
|
