2022 (1) TMI 456 - 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 dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - The petitioner filed present petition under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 and served the copy of this petition however, the same was returned back with remarks refused . The notice along with the paper book was sent on the registered e-mail id of Corporate Debtor available on master data on 02.07.2019 and the same did not bounce back as per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner - The petitioner has filed its bank statement (Annexure-5) that the amount claimed or any part thereof, the petitioner has neither received nor had any person, on its behalf who received in any manner the amount due towards Corporate Debtor as required under Section 9(3)(c) of I B Code nor received any notice of dispute raised by the corporate debtor under Section 9(3)(b) of the IBC, 2016. Territorial Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Ludhiana, Punjab and therefore, this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The default occurred from 25.05.2017 and the petition is filed on 01.03.2019, hence the debt is not time barred and the petition is filed within the period of limitation. The present petition is complete and the petitioner is entitled to claim its dues, which remain uncontroverted by the Corporate Debtor, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt. In the backdrop of above facts and records, the present petition is liable to admitted, in terms of Section 9(5) of IBC, 2016. - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition filed under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency process against a limited company.
2. Default in payment of operational debt by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.
4. Moratorium following the admission of the petition.

Issue 1: Petition under Section 9 of IBC, 2016
The petition was filed by a Proprietorship concern against a limited company under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioner sought to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor, alleging non-payment of dues amounting to &8377;13,88,969. The petition was filed within the period of limitation, and despite several opportunities, the Corporate Debtor did not respond, leading to an ex parte hearing.

Issue 2: Default in Payment of Operational Debt
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and trading of cycle parts, supplied various parts to the Corporate Debtor, raising invoices totaling to the claimed amount. Despite a demand notice and subsequent reminders, the Corporate Debtor neither disputed the debt nor made any payments towards the outstanding dues. The Tribunal found the debt to be valid and undisputed, establishing the default in payment by the Corporate Debtor.

Issue 3: Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional
In the absence of naming an Insolvency Resolution Professional by the petitioner, the Tribunal appointed Mr. Deepankur Sharma as the Interim Resolution Professional. Mr. Sharma was directed to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, suspend the powers of the Board of Directors, and take control of the assets. Additionally, he was tasked with constituting a Committee of Creditors, preparing asset inventory, and sending regular progress reports to the Tribunal.

Issue 4: Moratorium Following Admission of the Petition
Upon admitting the petition under Section 9(5) of IBC, 2016, a moratorium was declared, prohibiting various actions against the Corporate Debtor, as outlined in Section 14(1) of the Code. The Tribunal directed the Operational Creditor to deposit a specified amount with the Interim Resolution Professional to cover expenses. The moratorium period would entail certain provisions as per Sections 14(2) to 14(4) of the Code.

The judgment comprehensively addressed the issues involved, ensuring due process and adherence to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal's decision to admit the petition, appoint an Interim Resolution Professional, and enforce a moratorium reflects the legal framework governing insolvency proceedings and the protection of creditors' rights in such cases.