2021 (8) TMI 416 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and default or not - validity and service of statutory demand notice - HELD THAT - Though, the demand notice sent to the registered office address was not delivered but the notices sent to Corporate Office address and Okhla address have been duly delivered and served on the respondent-corporate debtor. The respondent-corporate debtor while not denying the service of the demand notice at its Corporate Office address and Okhla office address submits that since the demand notice was not served at its registered office address, the same cannot be treated as valid service - It is settled position of law that service of demand notice at the Corporate Office address or any other address where the corporate debtor regularly is having its operations shall be deemed to be a valid and due delivery of notice - decided in favor of petitioner. Existence of debt and default or not - whether the petitioner proved the debt and the liability of the respondent-corporate debtor to pay the same? - HELD THAT - The petitioner, inspite of the specific averments made by the respondent-corporate debtor in its reply, has not chosen to dispute the same by filing any rejoinder to the said reply. The petitioner has also not denied the contention of the corporate debtor that the invoices raised in respect of Season 3 were not in accordance with the work done and the amount for the service was over charged and accordingly, an amount of ₹ 1 crore has been paid in full and final settlement of all the claims in respect of Season 3 - In the absence of specific denial of the averments made by the corporate debtor and since the petitioner failed to prove the debt and the liability to pay the same by the corporate debtor, this issue is held against the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the statutory demand notice.
2. Proof of debt and liability of the respondent-corporate debtor.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the statutory demand notice:
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent-corporate debtor. The petitioner claimed that the demand notice was duly delivered to the Corporate Office address and Okhla address, even though it was not served at the registered office address. The respondent argued that since the notice was not served at the registered office, it was not valid. The Tribunal held that service at the Corporate Office address or any other operational address of the corporate debtor is deemed valid. Therefore, the issue of the validity of the demand notice was decided in favor of the petitioner.

2. Proof of debt and liability of the respondent-corporate debtor:
The petitioner claimed an outstanding amount of &8377; 65,41,590/- from the respondent-corporate debtor, broken down into amounts due for Season 2 and Season 3 services. In response, the respondent contended that it had made payments as per agreements and that the invoices raised were not in accordance with the work done. The respondent claimed to have paid &8377; 1.25 crores for Season 2 and &8377; 1 crore for Season 3 as full and final settlements. The petitioner did not dispute these claims or provide any evidence to prove the debt and liability of the respondent. As a result, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish the debt and liability of the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the petition (CP (IB) No. 9/Chd/Hry/2019).

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition as the petitioner did not prove the debt and liability of the respondent-corporate debtor despite the validity of the demand notice being upheld.