9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1210 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Respondent failed to make repayment of outstanding amount - Debt due and payable or not -Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The applicant has attached the copy of Bank certificated issued by UCO Bank dated 27.07.2018 and also the copy of bank statement for relevant period in compliance with the requirement of Section 9(3)(c) of the IBC 2016 - The registered office of respondent is situated in New Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application - The present application is filed on 21.08.2018 which is within the period of limitation. 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 fulfillment of requirements under section 9(5) of the Code - Application admitted.
Issues:
1. Application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Operational Creditor vs. Corporate Debtor dispute. 3. Failure of Respondent to pay outstanding dues. 4. Ex parte proceedings due to non-appearance of Respondent. 5. Compliance with Section 9(3)(b) and Section 9(3)(c) of IBC 2016. 6. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 7. Timeliness of the application. 8. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional. 9. Imposition of moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Code. 10. Deposit by Operational Creditor for IRP expenses. Analysis: 1. The application was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by M/s. Gagan Ferrotech Ltd. against M/s. Manju J Homes India Limited for initiating the Corporate Insolvency process due to unpaid dues. The Applicant fulfilled the requirements under the Code, leading to the admission of the application by the Tribunal. 2. The dispute involved an Operational Creditor, M/s. Gagan Ferrotech Ltd., claiming dues from the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Manju J Homes India Limited, for the supply of Steel TMT Bars. Despite repeated reminders and a demand notice, the Respondent failed to pay the outstanding amount, prompting the initiation of insolvency proceedings. 3. The Respondent's non-payment of outstanding dues led to the Operational Creditor sending a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016, demanding payment of ?66,03,856.78 along with interest. Despite service of the notice, the Respondent neither paid the amount nor raised any dispute, necessitating the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 4. Due to the Respondent's non-appearance and failure to respond to the notices, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the Respondent, leading to the admission of the application by the Tribunal. 5. The Applicant complied with Section 9(3)(b) and Section 9(3)(c) of the IBC 2016 by submitting an affidavit stating no notice of dispute was received and providing necessary bank certificates and statements, ensuring procedural adherence. 6. The Tribunal asserted its jurisdiction to entertain the application as the registered office of the Respondent was in New Delhi, falling under its purview. 7. The application was filed within the period of limitation, meeting the timeliness requirement for initiating insolvency proceedings as per the Code. 8. The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, Mr. Harish Goyal, to oversee the resolution process, directing compliance with relevant sections of the Code for effective resolution. 9. The admission of the application invoked a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Code, prohibiting certain actions against the Respondent, with provisions of Section 14(2) to 14(3) coming into effect during the moratorium period. 10. The Tribunal ordered the Operational Creditor to deposit ?2 lakhs in a separate account for immediate expenses to be incurred by the IRP, ensuring proper financial arrangements during the resolution process. This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues and details of the judgment delivered by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.
|
