9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 416 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - operational debt due - existence of a dispute between the parties or not? - HELD THAT - This adjudicating authority is of the considered view that operational debt is due to the Applicant and in support of that operational creditor has placed copy of the ledger at page Nos. 8 to 10 to the application. That, service is complete and no dispute has been raised by the respondent. That, Applicant is an Operational Creditor within the meaning of sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Code. The petitioner is able to establish that there exists debt as well as occurrence of default - the Application filed by the Applicant is complete in all respects. Thus, it is a fit case to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process by admitting the Application under Section 9(5)(1) of the Code - petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues involved:
Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for triggering Insolvency Resolution Process against a corporate debtor due to non-payment of license fee. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code The applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process against the corporate debtor, M/s. Steps Dumask Waste Processing Services Private Limited, for non-payment of the license fee. The applicant, an operational creditor, had a Leave and License Agreement with the corporate debtor, under which the corporate debtor was obligated to pay a monthly license fee of ?80,000. The debt of ?16,49,600 became due and payable by the corporate debtor to the operational creditor. Issue 2: Existence of Operational Debt The Tribunal examined whether there was an operational debt exceeding ?1.00 lac, whether the debt was due and payable, and whether there was a dispute between the parties. The Tribunal referred to the Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to determine if the debt was subject to a legitimate dispute or set off. The Tribunal found that the operational debt was due to the applicant, as evidenced by the ledger provided, and no dispute was raised by the respondent. Issue 3: Appointment of Interim Insolvency Professional The Tribunal appointed Ms. Anjali Choksi as the Interim Insolvency Professional to act under Section 13(1)(c) of the Code. It directed the professional to declare a moratorium, make a public announcement of the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution, and call for submission of claims as required by the Code. Issue 4: Declaration of Moratorium The Tribunal admitted the application and declared a moratorium, prohibiting various actions against the corporate debtor, including instituting suits, transferring assets, enforcing security interests, and recovering property. It directed that the supply of goods and essential services to the corporate debtor should not be terminated during the moratorium period, except for transactions notified by the Central Government. Conclusion The Tribunal admitted the petition, declared a moratorium, and directed the Interim Insolvency Professional to proceed with the Insolvency Resolution Process. The order of moratorium would remain in effect until the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until a resolution plan was approved or liquidation ordered. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the order was communicated to all relevant parties.
|
