2019 (1) TMI 455 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Admission of petition under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor - it was alleged that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in making payment of ₹11,20,124/-which is due for payment for supply of cement to Hiranandi Palace Gardens (HIRCO) project in Oragadam, Kanchipuram Dist. Tamil Nadu between 05.5.2012 and 17.9.2012 - Held that - Tere is a clear default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of outstanding amount to the petitioner, and there was no existing dispute regarding the same - The operational creditor had recommended name of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) with his consent however the consent was withdrawn subsequently and no new name is recommended by the Operational Creditor. The present case is fit for Admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Summary

Issues:
Company petition under section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for default in payment of outstanding amount for the supply of cement.

Analysis:
1. The Operational Creditor filed a Company Petition under section 9 of IBC against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on a payment of ?11,20,124 for the supply of cement for a project between May and September 2012 in Tamil Nadu.

2. The Operational Creditor provided evidence of invoices and correspondence showing the outstanding amount due from the Corporate Debtor. Despite various communications and promises of payment, the debt remained unpaid, leading to the filing of the petition.

3. The Operational Creditor followed due process by sending notices under relevant sections and providing details of the outstanding amount. The Corporate Debtor failed to respond or dispute the debt, indicating a clear default on their part.

4. The Operational Creditor submitted a complete application under Section 9(2) of IBC, including proof of delivery of demand notices and absence of any dispute from the Corporate Debtor. The bank certificate further confirmed non-payment by the Corporate Debtor.

5. The Corporate Debtor did not engage in the legal proceedings, failing to respond to notices or appear before the Tribunal. The lack of representation or dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor strengthened the case for admitting the petition.

6. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions, documents, and arguments, found the case suitable for admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, declaring a moratorium under Section 14 with specific directions to protect the interests of the parties involved.

7. The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional and imposed restrictions on legal actions against the Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period, ensuring the continuation of essential services and initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process.

8. The order of moratorium was effective immediately, with clear directives on the duration and specific transactions exempted from the moratorium. The appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional was communicated to all relevant parties for further proceedings.