9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1113 - 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 - It is settled position of law that provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount(s) - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. Since the Respondent has already drawn six cheques for total amount of ₹ 6,69,362/-(which is total principal amount claimed in the Petition), and undertakes to honor those cheques whenever presented for realization, we are inclined to dispose of the instant Company Petition with directions. The Petitioner cannot claim interest due to circumstances. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC, 2016 for default in payment. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process The case involved a petition filed by an Operational Creditor seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor for defaulting on a payment of ?6,69,363. The Operational Creditor had sold, supplied, and delivered goods to the Corporate Debtor, who failed to pay the outstanding amount despite receiving a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor issued a cheque for the outstanding amount, but it bounced due to insufficient funds. The Operational Creditor contended that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the debt, establishing the Corporate Debtor's inability to pay its financial obligations. Issue 2: Legal Proceedings and Disputes The Operational Creditor issued invoices with payment terms, including an advance payment and balance due within 30 days. After the cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor bounced, legal notices were sent under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Respondent argued that they were willing to settle the claim and provided cheques to the Operational Creditor for the outstanding amount. The Corporate Debtor faced financial challenges due to the insolvency of a main contractor, affecting their ability to meet commitments to suppliers. Issue 3: Adjudication and Legal Precedents The Adjudicating Authority considered the arguments of both parties and referred to legal precedents, emphasizing that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not a substitute for a recovery forum. The Supreme Court judgments highlighted that the existence of an undisputed debt is essential for initiating CIRP. Since the Corporate Debtor had drawn cheques for the total principal amount claimed in the petition and undertook to honor them upon presentation, the Authority disposed of the petition, directing the Corporate Debtor to hand over the cheques for realization to the Operational Creditor. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the petition, directing the Corporate Debtor to honor the cheques issued for the outstanding amount. The case highlighted the importance of undisputed debts for initiating insolvency proceedings and emphasized that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not meant for mere recovery of outstanding amounts.
|
