9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 7 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - petition dismissed on the ground that a Scheme of Compromise filed by the Corporate Debtor is pending before this Tribunal and the Statement of Account relied upon by the petitioner are not certified as per the Banker s Books of Evidence Act and there was no proof of default - HELD THAT - On perusal of various emails sent by the Corporate Debtor submitted before this tribunal by the petitioner and as rightly contended by the petitioner the debt and default stands proved in this case and all the pleas raised by the respondent in the reply to the main company petition are not legally sustainable and liable to be rejected. The petitioner also suggested the name Mr. Adesh Kumar Gupta as Interim Resolution Professional and enclosed the consent letter given by the proposed IRP in Form-2. The company petition is complete in all respects - the company petition is liable to be admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
- Admission of Company Petition seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. - Existence of debt and default by the Corporate Debtor. - Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional. - Initial CIRP cost deposit by the Operational Creditor. - Moratorium and restrictions during the CIRP period. Admission of Company Petition: The Company Petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on multiple payments. The Petitioner alleged that the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments totaling USD 216,344.04, invoking Sections 8 & 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Petitioner provided detailed evidence of invoices issued, payments received, and outstanding amounts due, supported by bank transaction statements. Despite the Corporate Debtor acknowledging the debt and promising repayment, they failed to fulfill their obligations. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, admitted the Company Petition, ordering the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. Existence of Debt and Default: The Corporate Debtor admitted the existence of the debt and default through various emails, establishing the debt and default. The Tribunal reviewed the correspondence submitted by the Petitioner, confirming the debt and default. The Corporate Debtor's defense regarding a pending Scheme of Compromise and the certification of the Statement of Account was deemed legally unsustainable. The Tribunal found the debt and default to be proven, leading to the admission of the Company Petition. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: The Tribunal appointed Mr. Adesh Kumar Gupta as the Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the CIRP process. The Petitioner suggested Mr. Gupta's name and provided the consent letter from the proposed IRP, ensuring the completeness of the Company Petition. The appointment was made to carry out the functions under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ensuring a smooth resolution process. Initial CIRP Cost Deposit: The Operational Creditor was directed to deposit an amount of ?5 Lakh towards the initial CIRP cost immediately upon communication of the Order. This deposit was to be made by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favor of the appointed Interim Resolution Professional, facilitating the initial proceedings of the CIRP. Moratorium and Restrictions: Various restrictions were imposed by the Tribunal during the CIRP period, including prohibiting the institution of suits against the Corporate Debtor, preventing asset transfers, and ensuring the supply of essential goods or services continued uninterrupted. The order of moratorium was to be in effect until the completion of the CIRP process or until a resolution plan was approved or liquidation ordered. Additionally, the management of the Corporate Debtor was vested in the IRP/RP during the CIRP period, with specific instructions for the suspended directors and employees. The public announcement of the CIRP process was mandated, and the Registry was directed to update the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues addressed by the Tribunal, the evidence considered, and the decisions made regarding the admission of the Company Petition and the subsequent actions to be taken during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
|
