2018 (12) TMI 1942 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the Petition and the documents annexed with the Petition, this Bench is of the considered view that there are debts and the Corporate Applicant has committed default in repayment of the debts and the Petition contains the particulars as required u/s 10 of the Code. Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Filing of Company Petition under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016
- Default in repayment of debts by the Corporate Applicant
- Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)
- Declaration of moratorium and consequential directions

Analysis:

1. Filing of Company Petition under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016:
The Company Petition was filed by the Corporate Applicant seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Petition contained necessary particulars as required under the Code, including details of debts owed and default in repayment, leading to the admission of the petition by the Bench.

2. Default in repayment of debts by the Corporate Applicant:
The Corporate Applicant disclosed that a significant sum was due to two Financial Creditors, which was in default. This default in repayment was a crucial factor considered by the Bench in admitting the Company Petition and declaring a moratorium.

3. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Corporate Applicant proposed Mr. Suresh Saluja as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to carry out the functions as mandated by the Code. The Bench approved the appointment of Mr. Suresh Saluja as the IRP based on the proposal submitted by the Corporate Applicant.

4. Declaration of moratorium and consequential directions:
Upon reviewing the Petition and accompanying documents, the Bench found merit in declaring a moratorium. The moratorium included directions prohibiting the institution of suits, continuation of pending proceedings against the Corporate Applicant, and other actions related to its assets. Additionally, specific directions were issued regarding the supply of essential goods or services, applicability of Section 14, the duration of the moratorium, and the public announcement of the insolvency resolution process. The Bench also directed the Registry to communicate the order to the Corporate Applicant and the appointed IRP promptly.

In conclusion, the judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench involved the admission of a Company Petition under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 due to default in debt repayment by the Corporate Applicant. The appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and the declaration of a moratorium with specific directions were key aspects of the judgment, ensuring compliance with the Code's provisions for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process.