2020 (5) TMI 197 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - time limitation - Corporate Debtor failed make payment of its outstanding dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly the present application being filed on 19-11-2018, which is well beyond the stipulated time period of three years, the present petition as filed by the Petitioner is barred by limitation and hence liable to be rejected. The debt which is being claimed to be in default from the Corporate Debtor is barred by limitation - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 based on a claim of operational debt amounting to ?57,88,773 by an Operational Creditor against a Corporate Debtor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Application under Section 9 of IBC, 2016:
The application was filed by the Operational Creditor to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor based on an operational debt claim of ?57,88,773. The Operational Creditor sought to enforce a judgment and decree passed by the High Court in C.S. No. 440 of 2011.

2. Particulars of Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor, a Private Limited Company, was identified with its CIN, incorporation date, authorized capital, and paid-up capital. The Registered Office was located in Chennai.

3. Operational Debt Claim and Compromise:
The Operational Creditor claimed an operational debt of ?81,88,793 arising from a technical and crew management agreement with the Corporate Debtor. A Memorandum of Compromise was entered into, settling the debt at ?40,00,000, of which ?24,00,000 was paid, and post-dated cheques were issued for the remaining amount.

4. Contentions of the Parties:
The Operational Creditor argued that the Corporate Debtor defaulted on the payment, leading to the initiation of CIRP. In contrast, the Corporate Debtor contended that the debt was assigned to an individual through the compromise, absolving the Corporate Debtor of any liability.

5. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor's claim was primarily based on the decree from the High Court and lacked supporting documentation. It highlighted the limitation period for filing the petition and observed discrepancies in the claimed amount. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, citing it as time-barred and lacking merit.

6. Barred by Limitation and Dismissal:
The Tribunal found the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor to be time-barred, exceeding the three-year limitation period. Referring to legal precedents and decisions, the petition was dismissed without costs, emphasizing the importance of adherence to timelines and discouraging such filings for mere execution of decrees.

7. Exemplary Costs and Judicial Discretion:
While acknowledging the potential for imposing exemplary costs to deter similar filings, the Tribunal refrained from doing so in this case, considering past decisions and the need to balance judicial efficiency with discouraging misuse of legal processes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition for initiation of CIRP due to the debt being time-barred and lacking sufficient legal basis, underscoring the importance of timely filings and substantive claims in insolvency proceedings.