9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 868 - 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 - It is a well settled principle of law that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it. Similarly, in the present matter the applicant withdrew the earlier filed petition on a promise made by corporate debtor. The corporate debtor also promised that the it would have no objection against initiation of insolvency proceedings in case of any failure to adhere terms of the agreement. In the present case also the applicant has acted upon the promise of the respondent corporate debtor and withdrew the earlier petition. The respondent itself made promise and therefore is now estopped from raising objection against the present petition. Time limitation - HELD THAT - The respondent itself in its reply has admitted the fact of making partial payments to the applicant even in the year 2018. The same fact was also recorded in the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by this Tribunal. Therefore, fresh cause of actions were started from the each date of payments made by respondent in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the application is not time barred and the judgments relied upon by the respondent corporate debtor is not applicable. The present petition is allowed initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor - moratorium declared.
Issues:
1. Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiation. 2. Objections raised by Corporate Debtor against the admission of the petition. 3. Interpretation of settlement agreement and its impact on the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and deposit requirement. 5. Declaration of moratorium and its implications. Issue 1: Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiation: The petition was filed by an Operational Creditor seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, citing pending dues of &8377;1,71,54,722 along with interest. The history of interactions between the parties, including previous applications and settlements, was outlined to provide context for the current petition. Issue 2: Objections raised by Corporate Debtor against the admission of the petition: The Corporate Debtor raised objections, including the claim being time-barred, lack of necessary certification from financial institutions, and assertions of prior payments made to the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor rebutted these objections, emphasizing the validity of the petition within the limitation period and the new cause of action arising from the settlement agreement. Issue 3: Interpretation of settlement agreement and its impact on the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: The Tribunal analyzed the settlement agreement between the parties, highlighting clauses indicating the Corporate Debtor's acknowledgment of potential insolvency proceedings if terms were not met. Citing legal principles of estoppel and past judicial decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor, having settled the matter previously and made subsequent payments, could not object to the current petition. The Tribunal allowed the petition, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Issue 4: Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and deposit requirement: The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional and directed the Operational Creditor to deposit a sum of &8377;2 lakhs to cover expenses related to the resolution process. The conditions and responsibilities of the Interim Resolution Professional were outlined, emphasizing compliance with regulations and the need for cooperation from all involved parties. Issue 5: Declaration of moratorium and its implications: A moratorium was declared, imposing restrictions on legal actions against the Corporate Debtor, asset transfers, and property recovery. Exceptions to the moratorium were specified, and the obligations of the Interim Resolution Professional, ex-management, and related parties were delineated to ensure proper management and preservation of the Corporate Debtor's assets. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, outlining the legal arguments, interpretations, and decisions made by the Tribunal in the context of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy proceedings.
|
