9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 468 - 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 - HELD THAT - It is evident that the Corporate Debtor did not respond to the notice of demand issued by the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor did not file counter inspite of granting several adjournments. By virtue of order dated 15.04.2021, the Tribunal forfeited the right of the Corporate Debtor to file counter and the matter was listed for arguments. The Counsel for the Corporate Debtor did not appear thereafter. Hence it can be understood that the Corporate Debtor does not have anything to submit in opposition to the contentions made by the Operational Creditor. This is a fit case to admit and order initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor - application admitted.
Issues involved:
Application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 based on operational creditor claims. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Claim: The application was filed by M/s. Seapol Port Private Limited (SPPL) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Lloyds Shipping Private Limited for defaulting in payment of invoices totaling &8377; 1,17,75,833, including interest. The claim was made under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. Service Agreement: M/s. SPPL provided services to M/s. LSPL by deploying a Harbour Mobile Crane (HMC) for loading and unloading cargo at Visakhapatnam Port. The agreement between the parties involved letters exchanged with the Traffic Manager of the Port to permit the use of the HMC, with M/s. SPPL forwarding letters due to delays from M/s. LSPL. 3. Payment Terms: The agreement required all payments to be made in advance, with the Operational Creditor extending a credit period of 15 days as agreed verbally. Despite this, the first due date of 14.08.2018 remained unpaid, leading to the issuance of a demand notice on 05.06.2020, which went unanswered by the Corporate Debtor. 4. Legal Proceedings: The Corporate Debtor failed to respond to the demand notice or file a counter, leading to the Tribunal forfeiting the right to file a counter. The matter proceeded to arguments, with the Corporate Debtor failing to appear, indicating a lack of opposition to the Operational Creditor's claims. 5. Judgment and Appointment of IRP: The Tribunal found it appropriate to admit and initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. An Interim Resolution Professional, Mr. Sunkara Venkateswara Rao, was appointed since the Operational Creditor did not suggest any name. The Company Petition was admitted ex parte, and the CIRP was ordered to commence and be completed within 180 days. 6. Further Directions: The Interim Resolution Professional was directed to take charge of the Corporate Debtor's management, declare moratorium, and ensure cooperation from Directors, Promoters, or any other associated persons. The Registry was instructed to communicate the order to the relevant parties for compliance with necessary procedures. This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal proceedings and key points leading to the judgment for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process based on operational creditor claims against the defaulting Corporate Debtor.
|
