9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 507 - 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 - The Corporate Debtor has neither stopped placing orders to the Operational Creditor, nor has initiated any civil or criminal proceeding against them. Thus, we are of the firm belief that this is only an afterthought and concocted contentions of the Corporate Debtor which cannot be relied upon - Moreover, the ledger accounts of the Corporate Debtor for the Financial Year 2016-2017 maintained by the Operational Creditor bears the amount of debt of ₹ 1,75,56,450.65/- which was due and payable on the date of closing of the account i.e. 31.03.2018. This Bench having been satisfied with the Application filed by the Operational Creditor which is in compliance of provisions of section 8 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admits this Application declaring moratorium - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment by Corporate Debtor. 2. Alleged disputes between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. 3. Admissibility of the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 4. Existence of a pre-existing dispute. 5. Legal and procedural compliance by both parties. Detailed Analysis: 1. Default in Payment by Corporate Debtor: The Operational Creditor, Future Electronics Inc. (Distribution) Pte. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Chaipertech Electronics Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) for defaulting on a payment of ?2,17,95,594.40. This amount includes ?1,73,86,654.4 towards the purchase price of products, interest of ?39,08,940, and legal fees of ?5,00,000. 2. Alleged Disputes Between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor: The Corporate Debtor denied the allegations, claiming disputes existed between the parties. They asserted that the Operational Creditor supplied materials without proper orders and dumped goods worth ?1,00,00,000. They also raised issues regarding the quality of materials and provided evidence of complaints through emails. However, the Operational Creditor provided invoices, emails, and statements of accounts proving the supply and receipt of goods. 3. Admissibility of the Petition Under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: The Tribunal reviewed all documents and submissions and found discrepancies in the Corporate Debtor's arguments. It was noted that despite raising contentions about manipulated documents and disputes, the Corporate Debtor did not initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal emphasized the Corporate Debtor’s failure to return the goods or formally complain at the time of alleged dumping, undermining their defense. 4. Existence of a Pre-Existing Dispute: The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, which mandates that disputes must be pre-existing and communicated before the demand notice. The Corporate Debtor failed to notify the Operational Creditor of any dispute before the demand notice dated 17.04.2018. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor's objections were raised only in their reply to the petition, not in response to the demand notice, indicating no pre-existing dispute. 5. Legal and Procedural Compliance by Both Parties: The Tribunal confirmed that the Operational Creditor complied with Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Corporate Debtor’s arguments about the economic situation and their intent to pay upon receiving bank funding further indicated acknowledgment of the debt. The Tribunal also noted that the Corporate Debtor’s ledger accounts showed a debt of ?1,75,56,450.65 as of 31.03.2018, corroborating the claim. Orders: The Tribunal admitted the petition and declared a moratorium, prohibiting the initiation or continuation of suits against the Corporate Debtor, and ensuring the supply of essential goods or services. An interim resolution professional was appointed to carry out the functions as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The order of moratorium will be effective until the completion of the CIRP or until further orders. Conclusion: The petition was admitted, and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, with the Tribunal finding no credible pre-existing dispute and confirming the default in payment. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to both parties and the interim resolution professional immediately.
|
