9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 386 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - claims dues of Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dues or not - HELD THAT - There is no truth in the story of issuing debit note by the Corporate Debtor or acceptance thereof by the Operational Creditor. The version of the Operational Creditor that neither of the two letters were received by the Operational Creditor and the seal and initials also do not belong to the Operational Creditor in any manner appears to be probable one. The Operational debt of ₹ 1,70,82,059.04 is due and outstanding to be payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor has failed to clear its outstanding and defaulted in making the payment in spite of notice under Section 8 of the IBC. The sum of ₹ 1,70,82,059.04 is payable along with interest to the Operational Creditor - there are no hesitation in admitting the petition and ordering initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether any operational debt is due to the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor. 2. Whether there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied. 3. Whether the Corporate Debtor issued a debit note accepted by the Operational Creditor. 4. Whether the amount of ?16,24,568 was paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether any operational debt is due to the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor: The Operational Creditor filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming an unpaid amount of ?1,70,82,059.04 for goods supplied to the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor provided tax invoices and a ledger account to support its claim. The Corporate Debtor admitted to receiving goods but claimed a dispute over the quality and specifications of some supplies. 2. Whether there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied: The Corporate Debtor argued that supplies received in October and November 2017 were not as per the desired specifications and claimed to have communicated this to the Operational Creditor via a letter dated 13th November 2017, and another on 17th January 2018. The Operational Creditor denied receiving these letters and claimed the seals and initials were forged. The Tribunal found no credible evidence of a pre-existing dispute, noting that the Corporate Debtor consumed the goods and did not return them. 3. Whether the Corporate Debtor issued a debit note accepted by the Operational Creditor: The Corporate Debtor claimed that a debit note for ?1,54,00,000 was issued and accepted by the Operational Creditor due to defective goods. However, the Tribunal found no minutes or signed agreements to support this claim. The Tribunal deemed the Corporate Debtor's claim of a debit note as an afterthought designed to evade payment, especially since no input tax credit was reversed. 4. Whether the amount of ?16,24,568 was paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor: The Corporate Debtor claimed to have paid ?16,24,568, but the Operational Creditor denied receiving this amount, stating it was paid to a group company, Aanchal Ispat Limited. The Tribunal found that the payment was indeed made to Aanchal Ispat Limited, not the Operational Creditor, and thus could not be credited towards the debt in question. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Operational Creditor successfully established the outstanding operational debt of ?1,70,82,059.04, which the Corporate Debtor failed to pay despite a demand notice. The Tribunal found no valid proof of a pre-existing dispute or acceptance of any debit note by the Operational Creditor. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the petition and ordered the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, declaring a moratorium and appointing an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Order: i) The application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, is admitted. ii) A moratorium is declared. iii) The IRP is appointed. iv) The Operational Creditor is directed to deposit ?1,00,000 for preliminary expenses. v) The Registry is directed to communicate the order to all concerned parties. The matter is listed for a progress report on 10.11.2020.
|
