2019 (11) TMI 774 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor defaulted in repayment in amount - HELD THAT - The amount of default exceeds ₹ 1,00,000/- as per the requirement under section 4 of the Code, 2016. Hence, this application is within the purview of section 9 of the IBC, 2016. The present application is complete and the Applicant is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt, and fulfilment of requirements under section 9(5) of the Code - the present application is admitted. Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
- Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating corporate insolvency process.
- Failure of the respondent to pay outstanding amount for security services provided.
- Respondent's admission of debt but citing financial constraints and pending arbitration claims.
- Compliance with the conditions outlined in Section 9 of the Act.
- Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional and initiation of moratorium period.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by M/s Dynamic Security against M/s Ajit Automotive Services Private Limited for non-payment of dues for security services provided. The applicant sought to initiate the corporate insolvency process based on the outstanding amount of ?4,52,514 despite issuing invoices and a demand notice to the respondent.

2. The respondent, in response to the demand notice, admitted the debt but claimed financial constraints and pending arbitration claims against another company as reasons for non-payment. The respondent's argument was deemed vague and contingent upon winning the arbitration case, which was not considered a valid defense in the eyes of the law.

3. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited to determine the existence of operational debt, non-payment, and the presence of any dispute. The respondent's admission of the debt and lack of dispute regarding the outstanding amount established the validity of the applicant's claim.

4. The Tribunal found that the application met the requirements under Section 9(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and admitted the application. Consequently, a moratorium was imposed on the respondent as per Section 14(1) of the Code, with further provisions outlined in Sections 14(2) to 14(3) applicable during the moratorium period.

5. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed by the Tribunal to oversee the proceedings and take necessary steps in accordance with the Code. The IRP was directed to file a report within the statutory period as required by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order was communicated to the parties involved and the relevant authorities for further action.