9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 163 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute - HELD THAT - The services were availed by the Corporate Debtor and there is no dispute about this. The only contention raised is that the purchased price of material was much higher than market price and that there was collusion by an employee of the Corporate Debtor. There is not even a whisper in the petition as to when the fraud was discovered. Also, there was no reply from the side of the Corporate Debtor to the Demand Notice - Thus, there is only an attempt to clutch at straws by saying that there was some collusion on the part of some of the Corporate Debtor's employee(s). However, even if this is accepted at face value, there may be various other legal options for the Corporate Debtor to proceed against the employee(s) in question. The contention/stand of the Corporate Debtor is outside the purview of IBC and it is a matter of Doctrine of Indoor Management , with which Operational Creditor is not at all Concerned. The Petition made by the Operational Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of minimum amount of one lakh rupees stipulated under section 4(1) of the IBC. Therefore, the default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the Petition. This Adjudicating Authority admits this Petition and orders initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor - petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
- Company Petition under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Private Limited Company. - Allegation of default in payment by the Corporate Debtor. - Dispute regarding the validity of the claim raised by the Operational Creditor. - Allegations of collusion and fraudulent activities between the Operational Creditor and an employee of the Corporate Debtor. - Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority over the matter. - Compliance with statutory requirements for initiating CIRP. Analysis of Judgment: 1. Company Petition under IBC: The Company Petition was filed by the Operational Creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on a payment of a specific amount. The Operational Creditor provided detailed evidence of the debt owed by the Corporate Debtor, including invoices and ledger accounts, to support the claim. 2. Allegation of Default: The Operational Creditor alleged that the Corporate Debtor failed to make a payment of a substantial amount, including the principal sum and interest. The Corporate Debtor did not contest the fact that the services were availed, but raised concerns about the pricing and collusion with one of its employees. 3. Validity of Claim and Dispute: The Corporate Debtor disputed the validity of the claim, alleging collusion between the Operational Creditor and its employee to inflate prices. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that even if such collusion existed, it did not invalidate the debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. 4. Jurisdiction and Compliance: The judgment confirmed the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to hear the petition based on the location and nature of the parties involved. It also highlighted the compliance of the Operational Creditor with the statutory requirements for initiating CIRP, including serving a Demand Notice and submitting necessary certificates. 5. Order and Moratorium: The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition, ordered the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, and imposed a moratorium under section 14 of the IBC. The moratorium included restrictions on legal actions against the Corporate Debtor and the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 6. Further Directions: The judgment directed the appointment of an IRP, outlined the responsibilities and powers of the IRP during the CIRP period, and mandated the deposit of funds by the Operational Creditor for expenses related to the process. The Registry was instructed to communicate the order to relevant parties promptly. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the petition by the Operational Creditor, acknowledging the default by the Corporate Debtor and ordering the commencement of CIRP, while addressing jurisdictional issues and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
|
