9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 853 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - issuance of demand notice - HELD THAT - The demand notice was sent to the registered address of the corporate debtor as per the master data at Page No. 46 of the petition in which registered office is shown as Second Floor, Block No. 40, B-3, Sector-6, Parwanoo, Solan, HP-173220. Copy of postal receipt and tracking report showing duly service of notice are part of Annexure -VI(Colly) at Page Nos. 34 to 36. Whether the operational debt was disputed by the corporate debtor? - HELD THAT - The respondent-corporate debtor has filed reply and admitted the occurrence of default towards operational creditor. Thus, there is no dispute as to the liability between the corporate debtor and the operational creditor. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - As a statutory requirement under Section 9(3)(b) of the Code, an affidavit dated 18.11.2019 has been placed by the operational creditor stating that despite the service of notice dated 02.11.2019, corporate debtor did not raise any dispute qua the outstanding payment. The bank statement for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.10.2019 has been annexed as Annexure-V of the petition. It has been shown that the corporate debtor has failed to make payment of the aforesaid amount due as mentioned in the statutory notice till date. It is also observed that the conditions under Section 9 of the Code stand satisfied. Accordingly, the petitioner proved the debt and the default, which is more than ₹ 1 lakh by the respondent-corporate debtor. The present petition being complete and having established the default in payment of the Operational Debt for the default amount being above ₹ 1,00,000/-, the petition is admitted in terms of Section 9 of the IBC - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
1. Validity of demand notice service 2. Dispute regarding operational debt 3. Timeliness of the Corporate Petition (C.P.) Issue 1: Validity of demand notice service The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor. The demand notice in Form 3 dated 02.11.2019 was sent to the registered address of the Corporate Debtor as per the master data. The notice was accompanied by relevant documents and was served via speed post. The postal receipt and tracking report confirmed the proper service of the notice. Thus, the service of the demand notice was deemed valid. Issue 2: Dispute regarding operational debt The Corporate Debtor admitted the occurrence of default towards the Operational Creditor in the reply filed. Consequently, there was no dispute regarding the liability between the parties, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt. Issue 3: Timeliness of the Corporate Petition (C.P.) The Corporate Petition was filed within the period of limitation as all the invoices related to the operational debt were from the year 2019, and the petition was filed in 2020. Therefore, the filing of the C.P. was well within the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal found the petition complete and established the default in payment of the Operational Debt, exceeding ?1,00,000. Consequently, the petition was admitted under Section 9 of the IBC, and a moratorium was declared under Section 14 of the Code. The moratorium imposed various prohibitions on actions against the Corporate Debtor, including suits, asset disposal, and recovery actions. The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) from the approved panel for the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, to oversee the resolution process. The IRP was directed to follow the necessary steps as mandated by the IBC and to constitute a Committee of Creditors. Regular progress reports were to be submitted to the Tribunal, and the IRP was required to file Form 2 within a week of the order. In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the petition, declared a moratorium, and appointed an IRP to manage the resolution process, ensuring compliance with the IBC provisions and guidelines.
|
