2020 (6) TMI 281 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of dispute or not - HELD THAT - The dispute raised by the corporate debtor does not categorizes as dispute, and the plea of dispute is nothing but moonshine defence, created by Corporate Debtor against the applicant without any evidence and hence merit, which is clear afterthought to defeat the claim of applicant. The date of default is occurred from 26-12-2016 and hence the debt is not time-barred and the application is filed on 3-5-2019 within the period of limitation - The Applicant has filed an affidavit under section 9(3)(b) affirming that no notice of dispute has been given by the Corporate debtor relating to dispute of the unpaid operational debt - The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application. The present application is complete and the applicant has established the default in payment of the operational debt, hence is entitled to claim - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiation.
- Dispute regarding outstanding dues and quality of services/goods.
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
- Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.
- Deposit by Operational Creditor with the Interim Resolution Professional.
- Moratorium under section 14(1) of the Code.

Analysis:
1. Application under section 9 of IBC: The Applicant, a private limited company, filed an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, another private limited company, for non-payment of operational debt. The Applicant established the default in payment of the operational debt, leading to the admission of the application.

2. Dispute regarding outstanding dues: The Corporate Debtor raised a dispute regarding the outstanding dues and the quality of services/goods provided by the Applicant. The Tribunal analyzed the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor and concluded that it did not qualify as a genuine dispute, but rather a moonshine defense without substantial evidence, as per the principles laid down in previous judgments.

3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to entertain and try the application since the registered office of the Corporate Debtor was located in Delhi, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: The Tribunal appointed Mr. Manoj Kumar Anand as the Interim Resolution Professional, subject to certain conditions and disclosures as required under the relevant regulations. The appointment was made to oversee the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Respondent.

5. Deposit by Operational Creditor: The Tribunal directed the Operational Creditor to deposit a specified sum with the Interim Resolution Professional to cover the expenses related to the resolution process. The amount deposited would be subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors and refunded to the Operational Creditor as per the process.

6. Moratorium under section 14(1) of the Code: Following the admission of the application, a moratorium was imposed on the Corporate Debtor as per section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The moratorium prohibited certain actions against the Corporate Debtor, with specific provisions coming into effect during this period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiation, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, imposed a moratorium, and directed the Operational Creditor to deposit a sum with the Professional. The decision was based on the establishment of default in payment by the Corporate Debtor and the rejection of the dispute raised as lacking merit.