9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 499 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor has committed a default - Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 R/w Rule 6 of the I B (AAA) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT - The Respondent has pleaded that it is responsibility of the Petitioner to approach the Commercial Tax Officer Department, Government of Karnataka for appropriate relief, for which they will furnish necessary cooperation to the Petitioner to settle the issue. Therefore, we are inclined to dispose the Company petition with directions to the Respondent to facilitate to resolve the issue with regard to claim of Commercial Tax Officer as per letter dated 18.08.2017 - application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 for default in payment. 2. Dispute regarding outstanding operational debt and refund of EMD amount. 3. Non-issuance of C-Forms and its impact on winding up proceedings. 4. Claim of interest on the overdue amount and denial of payment by the Respondent. 5. Responsibility for resolving issues related to Commercial Tax Office claims. Issue 1: Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process The Petitioner, an Operational Creditor, filed a petition seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent, a Corporate Debtor, for defaulting on a payment of ?14,17,235. The Petitioner had supplied paper chemicals to the Respondent based on assurances and work orders but faced non-refund of EMD amounts and penalties due to non-issuance of C-Forms. A statutory notice was issued to the Respondent, which remained unanswered, leading to the petition under Section 9 of IBC, 2016. Issue 2: Dispute over Outstanding Operational Debt The Respondent objected to the claim, arguing that the amount stated by the Operational Creditor was incorrect. The Respondent claimed to have refunded a portion of the amount, making the petition redundant. Disputes arose over the non-refunded EMD amounts and the denial of payment by the Respondent. The Respondent also contested the validity of the grounds for winding up based on non-issuance of C-Forms. Issue 3: Non-issuance of C-Forms and Winding Up The Respondent argued that the non-issuance of C-Forms should not be a valid ground for winding up a company and that the Tribunal was not the appropriate forum for adjudicating such matters. The dispute over the C-Forms and their impact on the winding up proceedings was a significant point of contention between the parties. Issue 4: Claim of Interest and Denial of Payment The Petitioner claimed interest on the overdue amount, stating that the Respondent had not refunded the EMD amounts and had not paid the total outstanding debt. The Respondent denied the claim for interest, citing the refund of a portion of the amount and asserting that there was no agreement for payment of interest. Issue 5: Responsibility for Resolving Commercial Tax Claims During the hearing, both parties agreed that the main issue was resolved, but concerns remained regarding the submission of Forms/C-Forms by the Respondent. The Tribunal directed the Respondent to cooperate with the Petitioner to settle the issue with the Commercial Tax Officer, emphasizing the need for the Petitioner to approach the relevant department for relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the petition by instructing the Respondent to provide full cooperation to the Petitioner in resolving the issues related to the Commercial Tax Officer's claims. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
