9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1364 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dispute - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - Despite sufficient opportunity given to the Corporate Debtor, no appearance was filed before this Tribunal. Notice was issued by the Registry on 28.02.2022 and as per the tracking report available on record the same was delivered on 01.03.2022 at the registered office of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent Corporate Debtor was set ex-parte by order dated 08.03.2022, on said date too the matter was passed over and was taken up again. During the next hearing on 01.04.2022, the matter was passed over due to non-representation of the Respondent and taken up later, however none represented the Respondent and no IA was filed for setting aside ex-parte order. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the default arising in the present Application is much later to the timeline prescribed under Section 10A of IBC, 2016. Under the said circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no other option than to proceed with the present case and initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in relation to the Corporate Debtor. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a Corporate Debtor. Analysis: 1. The Operational Creditor filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor and appoint an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 2. The Operational Creditor, a Private Limited Company, claimed a sum of ?1,48,95,932/- from the Corporate Debtor, consisting of a principal amount and interest. The default date was mentioned as 22.12.2021, with detailed computations provided in the application. 3. The Operational Creditor submitted various documents, including bank statements, purchase orders, outstanding invoices, and demand notices, to support the claim against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment. 4. Despite multiple opportunities, the Corporate Debtor did not appear before the Tribunal, leading to an ex-parte order against them. The Tribunal noted that the default occurred after the timeline prescribed under Section 10A of the IBC, allowing the case to proceed. 5. The Tribunal admitted the application, initiating the moratorium period as per Section 14 of the Code, which restricts certain actions against the Corporate Debtor, including suits, asset disposal, and recovery proceedings. 6. The appointed IRP was directed to manage the Corporate Debtor's affairs, make a public announcement, and call for creditor claims. The Directors and management of the Corporate Debtor were instructed to cooperate with the IRP during the resolution process. 7. The IRP was mandated to comply with various sections of the Code, conduct the resolution process as per regulations, and submit progress reports to the Tribunal within specified timelines. 8. The Operational Creditor was directed to pay an initial sum to the IRP for expenses, and the next hearing was scheduled for a future date to monitor the progress of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
|
