2020 (9) TMI 945 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - The corporate debtor has not placed on record any document which exhibits the plausible dispute with respect to the quality of the materials supplied by the applicant nor with respect to the existence of the amount of alleged debt. Moreover, the notice under section 8 of code has not been disputed by the corporate debtor. It is only when application under section 9 is filed, the corporate debtor has come foreword with lame defence and without any evidence. It can be thus inferred that there is no merit in the so-called dispute raised by the corporate debtor in reply to the application. Therefore, it goes beyond doubt that the Applicant is entitled to claim its dues. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The date of default is occurred from 01.09.2018 and application is filed on 01.11.2018 hence the debt is not time barred and the application is filed within the period of limitation. Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - 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. The present application is admitted - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

Issues:
1. Application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiation.
2. Existence of dispute regarding quality of materials supplied and alleged debt.
3. Default in payment of operational debt by the Corporate Debtor.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.
6. Direction for deposit by Operational Creditor.
7. Moratorium under Section 14(1) of IBC, 2016.

Issue 1: Application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiation:
The Applicant, a limited company, filed an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant claimed unpaid operational debt totaling to &8377; 198,050,642.98, following the issuance of a demand notice in compliance with Section 8 of the Code.

Issue 2: Existence of dispute regarding quality of materials supplied and alleged debt:
The Corporate Debtor raised a defense asserting a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of materials supplied and the alleged debt. However, the Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor failed to provide any evidence supporting the existence of a dispute or the non-payment claim. The Applicant countered the defense, highlighting the lack of correspondence or evidence from the Corporate Debtor, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor.

Issue 3: Default in payment of operational debt by the Corporate Debtor:
Upon review of the documents and arguments presented, the Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment of the operational debt due to the Applicant. The Tribunal noted the absence of any document disputing the Section 8 notice served to the Corporate Debtor, affirming the Applicant's entitlement to claim the outstanding dues within the statutory limitation period.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
Given the location of the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Delhi, the Tribunal asserted its jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, thereby establishing the Tribunal's authority to proceed with the case.

Issue 5: Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional:
In the absence of the Applicant naming an Insolvency Resolution Professional, the Tribunal appointed Mr. Jayprakash Bansilal Somani as the Interim Resolution Professional, subject to specified conditions and compliance requirements, ensuring the proper administration of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Issue 6: Direction for deposit by Operational Creditor:
The Tribunal directed the Operational Creditor to deposit a specified sum with the Interim Resolution Professional to cover necessary expenses, emphasizing compliance with the regulations governing the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons.

Issue 7: Moratorium under Section 14(1) of IBC, 2016:
Upon admission of the application under Section 9(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a moratorium was imposed as per Section 14(1), prohibiting certain actions against the Corporate Debtor during the resolution process, with additional provisions coming into effect as per Sections 14(2) to 14(4) of the Code.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the multiple issues involved in the legal matter, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and the legal implications arising from the application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

← Previous Next →