9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 597 - 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 - This Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Operational Creditor has proved its case by placing evidence that there exists an operational debt for an amount exceeding the pecuniary threshold as provided in Section 4 of the IB Code, 2016 and default has occurred for which the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay. There has neither been any reply to Statutory Notice u/s. 8 of the IBC, 2016 on behalf of the Corporate Debtor nor the contentions raised by the Applicant in the instant application have been denied by way of an affidavit by the Corporate Debtor. Further, the Operational Creditor has fulfilled all the stipulations as required under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016 for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The instant application is hereby admitted and this Adjudicating Authority orders commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor herein, which shall ordinarily be completed within the timelines stipulated in the IB Code, 2016 - application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Detailed Analysis: 1. Operational Debt and Default: The Operational Creditor filed a Company Application seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Operational Creditor provided evidence of operational debt exceeding the pecuniary threshold as per Section 4 of the IB Code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor had failed to pay the due amount despite various invoices and demand notices, leading to the initiation of the application. 2. Procedural Compliance: The Respondent, Corporate Debtor, failed to file a Counter or appear during the proceedings despite multiple opportunities granted for the same. Due to the non-compliance and absence of the Respondent, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded ex-parte and ultimately disposed of the application without the Respondent's assistance. 3. Admission of Application: The Adjudicating Authority, after reviewing the submissions made by the Operational Creditor, found that all stipulations required under the IB Code, 2016 for initiating CIRP had been fulfilled. The Authority was satisfied with the evidence presented by the Operational Creditor, leading to the admission of the application to commence the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: The Authority appointed an Insolvency Professional as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) from the list issued by IBBI. The IRP was directed to file necessary consents and take charge of the Corporate Debtor's management immediately. Additionally, the Operational Creditor was directed to pay an advance fee to the IRP. 5. Moratorium and Compliance: A moratorium was declared from the date of the order till the completion of CIRP, prohibiting various actions against the Corporate Debtor. The IRP was instructed to comply with specific sections of the Code, and the Directors and Promoters associated with the Corporate Debtor were directed to provide necessary assistance to the IRP. 6. Operational Directives: The order included directives regarding the supply of essential goods or services, compliance with specific sections of the Code, and communication of the order to relevant parties and authorities for further action and compliance. This detailed analysis covers the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, procedural compliance, admission of the application, appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional, moratorium declaration, operational directives, and communication requirements as per the judgment delivered by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.
|
