9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 70 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - default in Payment - Held that - Form and manner of the application has to be the one as prescribed. It is evident from the record that the application has been filed on the proforma prescribed under Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Section 7 of IBC. This Tribunal is satisfied that a default has occurred and the application under Section 7 is complete. The name of the IRP has been proposed and there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition is admitted and Mr. Tarun Jain with the address 805, Padma Tower-I Rajendra Place, New Delhi and email-id [email protected] and having registration number IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00187/2017-18/10504 is appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional.
Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 2. Dispute over a loan agreement between the financial creditor and the corporate debtor. 3. Contention regarding the law of limitation for filing the insolvency application. 4. Examination of provisions of Section 7(2) and Section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and declaration of moratorium. Issue 1 - Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: The application was filed by M/s. Macro Leafin Private Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the corporate debtor, Pradeep Downhole Equipments Private Limited. The applicant claimed to be a financial creditor and provided details of the loan agreement and default in repayment by the corporate debtor. Issue 2 - Dispute over Loan Agreement: The dispute revolved around a loan agreement between M/s. Macro Leafin Private Limited and the corporate debtor, Pradeep Downhole Equipments Private Limited. The applicant alleged that the corporate debtor failed to repay the loan amount along with interest, whereas the respondent denied the default and raised objections regarding the timing of the application and the authenticity of the loan disbursement. Issue 3 - Law of Limitation Contention: The respondent contended that the application was barred by the law of limitation as it was filed over three years after the alleged loan disbursement. However, the applicant argued that the application was within the limitation period as the default occurred later than the execution of the loan agreement. Issue 4 - Examination of IBC Provisions: The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 7(2) and Section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to determine the admissibility of the application. It was found that the application was filed in the prescribed form and manner, satisfying the conditions for admission under Section 7(5) of the Code. Issue 5 - Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and Moratorium: Following the admission of the application, Mr. Tarun Jain was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. The Tribunal directed the IRP to make a public announcement and declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, imposing restrictions on legal actions against the corporate debtor and asset transfers. The IRP was tasked with managing the affairs of the corporate debtor in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the application under Section 7 of the IBC, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, and declared a moratorium to facilitate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the loan agreement, law of limitation, and compliance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
|
