9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 444 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - service of notice - HELD THAT - Though the case was filed on 12th December, 2019, the Petitioner could not attend office objection in time. Therefore, the case was listed on 12.03.2019 for compliance of office objections. It was subsequently listed for hearing on 18.03.20, 15.06.20 and 18.06.20 but none appears for the Petitioners on these dates. So the Tribunal ordered notice to the Respondent on 22.06.20. However, service of notice could not be effected on the Respondents till date and resultantly none appears for the Respondents. And the notices sent through Registry of the Tribunal returned un-served. The Petitioner also failed to serve notices on the Respondent till date. The Respondent has broadly admitted the debt in question, though they have raised dispute by way of its Reply. In order to consider for admission of a case filed under the provisions of Code, it is necessary to establish not only debt and default in question but also Corporate Debtor has become insolvent by virtue of its financial position. However, the Petitioner, even not pleaded that the Corporate Debtor has become insolvent except pleading that the Respondent failed to pay their outstanding dues. However, the Petitioner plead with the Respondent to clear their outstanding amount as they are small entrepreneurs and fulfilled their commitment to their staff. The Petitioner could not service notice on the Respondent even though sufficient time was granted to it - Therefore, instead of keeping it pending on the file of this Tribunal for service of notice and to furnish financial status of Corporate Debtor, it would be just and proper to dispose of the instant Company Petition with a direction to the Respondent to settle the issue, instead of prosecuting the litigation, in their own interest. It is directed that the Respondent/Corporate Debtor to settle the issue in question by taking into consideration of the status of Operational Creditor, being a small entrepreneur - In case, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor failed to settle the issue in question, within a period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Petitioner is at liberty to file fresh case in accordance with law for the same cause of action - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 based on default by the Corporate Debtor. Detailed Analysis: The case involved C.P. (IB) No. 140/BB/2020 filed by M/s. Famous Innovations Digital Creative Private Limited as the Operational Creditor seeking to initiate CIRP against M/s. Umaiyal Enterprises Services Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, for defaulting on a total amount of &8377; 17,87,141. The Operational Creditor provided services to the Corporate Debtor as per a Service Agreement, and despite reminders and a Demand Notice, the payment was not made, leading to the initiation of the insolvency process. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had broadly admitted the debt but disputed it in their reply. However, the Petitioner did not establish the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, merely alleging non-payment. The Tribunal emphasized the need to prove both the debt and default, along with the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. Despite granting sufficient time, the Petitioner failed to serve notice on the Respondent, leading the Tribunal to dispose of the petition with a direction for the Respondent to settle the outstanding dues instead of prolonging the litigation. The judgment directed the Respondent to settle the issue within two months, considering the Operational Creditor's status as a small entrepreneur. If the Respondent failed to settle the matter within the specified period, the Petitioner was given the liberty to file a fresh case for the same cause of action. The Registry was instructed to provide a copy of the order to both parties for necessary action.
|
