9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 313 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - This Tribunal maintains that the existence of the Operational Debt due from Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor could not be proved to the satisfaction of this Tribunal by the Petitioner so as to enable him to move this application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in order to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under I&B Code, 2016 against Corporate Debtor. Analysis: The application was filed by an Operational Creditor seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Operational Creditor, a foreign company, had issued legal and demand notices to the Corporate Debtor for an outstanding amount of USD 2,37,044.75. Despite several reminders and emails, the Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment, leading the Operational Creditor to approach the Tribunal. The Operational Creditor provided evidence of sending notices, deliveries, and filed an affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) of the I&B Code. The Operational Creditor submitted that the Corporate Debtor had ordered goods for which payment was due but not made within the agreed terms. The total amount due from the Corporate Debtor was &8377; 1,68,77,586. The Operational Creditor had sent multiple emails and reminders for payment, but no response was received. The Operational Creditor contended that the Corporate Debtor's failure to pay left them with no choice but to seek resolution through the Tribunal. In response, the Corporate Debtor alleged that the application was an abuse of process with mala fide intent. They claimed that the goods were not delivered as per the contract terms, entitling them to refuse payment. The Corporate Debtor argued that the Operational Creditor failed to fulfill delivery obligations and used a prohibited carrier, thus violating the contract terms. The Tribunal examined the documents and submissions from both parties. It noted that the Operational Creditor failed to prove delivery of goods to the Corporate Debtor. As per the Sale of Goods Act, the Operational Creditor could have stopped goods in transit if payment was not received, but they did not provide evidence of delivery. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the Operational Debt could not be proven satisfactorily, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor due to the lack of evidence regarding the delivery of goods and the existence of the operational debt.
|
