Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (8) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (8) TMI 606 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
2. Default in payment of debt
3. Admissibility of the petition considering the limitation period
4. Existence of a dispute between the parties
5. Requirement of a certificate from financial institutions
6. Interest calculation under MSME Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):
The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on payment. The tribunal admitted the petition, ordering the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

2. Default in Payment of Debt:
The Operational Creditor claimed an outstanding amount of ?1,83,58,490, including interest. The Corporate Debtor admitted liability for ?1,29,27,018 but disputed the additional interest claimed. The tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged its liability through ledger statements and emails, confirming the debt owed to the Operational Creditor.

3. Admissibility of the Petition Considering the Limitation Period:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the petition was time-barred as it was filed more than three years after the debt became due. However, the tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor's acknowledgments of liability in October 2015 and March 2017 reset the limitation period, making the petition admissible.

4. Existence of a Dispute Between the Parties:
The Corporate Debtor contended that there were ongoing disputes regarding the quality of work and delays by the Operational Creditor. The tribunal examined the evidence and concluded that the disputes raised were minor and had been addressed, thus no substantial dispute existed at the time of filing the petition.

5. Requirement of a Certificate from Financial Institutions:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the petition should be dismissed due to the absence of a certificate from financial institutions confirming the unpaid operational debt. The tribunal did not find this argument sufficient to reject the petition, as the debt and default were clearly established.

6. Interest Calculation Under MSME Act:
The Operational Creditor, being an MSME, claimed interest at 18% per annum under the MSME Act. The tribunal acknowledged the entitlement to interest but focused on the principal debt and the Corporate Debtor's admission of liability, which was sufficient for the petition's admission.

Order:
The tribunal admitted the petition, initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed, and the Operational Creditor was directed to deposit ?5 Lakh for the initial CIRP cost. The tribunal also imposed a moratorium on suits, proceedings, and actions against the Corporate Debtor's assets, ensuring the continuation of essential services during the CIRP period. The management of the Corporate Debtor was vested in the IRP, and the order was communicated to the Registrar of Companies for updating the Corporate Debtor's Master Data.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates