9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 527 - 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 - HELD THAT - As per Form V, Part IV, the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay an outstanding sum of ₹ 35,32,674/- for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.12.2018. The date of default occurred on the last date of payment made by the Corporate Debtor on 21.07.2018 and the present application was filed on 28.01.2019, hence the debt is not time barred and the application is filed within the period of limitation - The Applicant has filed an affidavit under section 9(3)(b) dated 25.01.2019 affirming that no notice of dispute has been given by the corporate debtor relating to dispute of the unpaid operational debt - the registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application. The present application is complete and the Applicant is entitled to claim its dues, which remain uncontroverted by the Corporate Debtor, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt. The present application is admitted, in terms of section 9 (5) of IBC, 2016 - Moratorium declared.
Issues:
1. Application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency process against a company. 2. Validity of Lease Agreement and outstanding debt claim. 3. Compliance with notice requirements under I&B Code, 2016. 4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the application. 5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and deposit by Operational Creditors. 6. Imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the I&B Code, 2016. Analysis: 1. The application was filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor based on an alleged outstanding debt. The Applicant provided details of the Lease Agreement and subsequent communications regarding the debt, which the Corporate Debtor failed to pay despite reminders and a demand notice. 2. The Lease Agreement between the parties, along with email communications and reminders, formed the basis of the claim for the outstanding debt amounting to ?35,32,674/-. The Tribunal found that the debt was not time-barred, as the application was filed within the period of limitation, and the Applicant had fulfilled the necessary requirements under the I&B Code, 2016. 3. The Applicant complied with the notice requirements under the I&B Code, 2016 by issuing a demand notice and serving the application to the Corporate Debtor through email and speed post. The Corporate Debtor neither disputed the debt nor made any payments towards it, leading to the Tribunal proceeding ex-parte against the Corporate Debtor. 4. The Tribunal established its jurisdiction to entertain the application as the registered office of the Corporate Debtor was in Delhi, falling under its jurisdiction. This allowed the Tribunal to adjudicate on the matter and admit the application under section 9(5) of the I&B Code, 2016. 5. The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and directed the Operational Creditors to deposit a sum of ?2 lacs with the IRP to cover expenses. The IRP was appointed subject to certain conditions, and the amount deposited was to be adjusted by the Committee of Creditors and eventually returned to the Operational Creditor. 6. Following the admission of the application under Section 9(5) of the I&B Code, 2016, a moratorium was imposed on the Corporate Debtor as per Section 14(1) of the Code. The terms of the moratorium and related provisions were outlined, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order to the relevant parties and authorities for compliance and record-keeping purposes.
|
