9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 355 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The failure on the part of the Corporate Debtor in non-adherence of the time schedule as stipulated under the Joint Memo of compromise as entered into between the parties, based on which this Tribunal was induced to dispose of the petition filed earlier, proves that the Corporate Debtor has committed default in payment of the amount due to the Operational Creditor and as such this Tribunal is left with no other option rather than to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as against the Corporate Debtor. The Petition as filed by the Operational Creditor is required to be admitted under Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016 - petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
Application under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Corporate Debtor; Non-compliance with terms of joint memo of compromise leading to restoration of the petition; Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and initiation of moratorium period. Analysis: 1. The Application (CP/748/IB/2018) was filed by the Operational Creditor seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor based on non-payment issues. A memo of compromise was initially filed, leading to the disposal of the petition with specific payment terms by the Corporate Debtor. 2. Subsequently, the Operational Creditor filed IA/836/IB/2020 stating non-compliance by the Corporate Debtor with the terms of the joint memo of compromise, resulting in the restoration of the original petition. The Corporate Debtor sought time for settlement, but further non-compliance led to the revival of the petition. 3. The Corporate Debtor's failure to adhere to the agreed payment schedule indicated default, prompting the Tribunal to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor under Section 9(5) of IBC, 2016. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was proposed but faced challenges leading to the appointment of a new IRP. 4. The Tribunal appointed a new IRP, subject to specific conditions and disclosures, initiating the moratorium period under Section 14(1) of the Code. The moratorium prohibited actions like suits, asset disposal, and recovery proceedings against the Corporate Debtor during this period. 5. Essential provisions regarding the supply of goods or services during the moratorium period were highlighted, emphasizing critical supply continuity for the Corporate Debtor's operations. The duration of the moratorium was specified until the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 6. The Operational Creditor was directed to pay a specified sum to the IRP to cover necessary expenses. The Tribunal's order admitting the Application under Section 9(5) of IBC, 2016 initiated the moratorium, with communication sent to relevant parties and authorities for record-keeping and compliance. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, outlining the progression of events leading to the Tribunal's decision to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and appoint an IRP, along with the implications of the moratorium period as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
