9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 169 - 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 - Pecuniary Jurisdiction/monetary limit involved - HELD THAT - The last invoice was raised on 28.05.2017, whereas the present application is filed on 01.01.2020, therefore, it is well within the limitation period and since the application was filed prior to the issuance of the notification dated 24.03.2020, by which the minimum threshold has been increased from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore, therefore, the present application is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Bench. The amount of default is also not denied by the Respondent either by filling the reply to the demand notice or even by filling the written synopsis. It is further observed that there is no pre-existing dispute and the application is complete. The Applicant has not proposed the name of IRP. The application fulfills the requirement of Section 9(5)(i) of the IBC 2016. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Existence and validity of operational debt. 3. Admissibility of the application within the limitation period and pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Presence of any pre-existing dispute. 5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and declaration of moratorium. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor supplied plumbing materials to the Corporate Debtor and raised invoices for the same, which remained unpaid. Despite numerous follow-ups and a demand notice dated 01.07.2019, the payment was not made. The total amount of debt due and payable was Rs. 28,07,764/-. 2. Existence and validity of operational debt: The Operational Creditor provided evidence of the supply of goods through purchase orders and tax invoices. The Corporate Debtor made part payments but failed to clear the outstanding operational debt. The Corporate Debtor confirmed the unpaid amount of Rs. 18,25,319/- on 31.10.2017. The demand notice issued under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016, was duly delivered to the Corporate Debtor, which did not dispute the debt or initiate any suit or arbitration proceedings. 3. Admissibility of the application within the limitation period and pecuniary jurisdiction: The application was filed on 01.01.2020, which was within the limitation period as the last invoice was raised on 28.05.2017. The application was also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Tribunal as it was filed before the threshold limit was increased from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore on 24.03.2020. 4. Presence of any pre-existing dispute: The Corporate Debtor argued that the petition should be dismissed due to the ongoing disputes and judgments involving the Amrapali Group of Companies, which affected the respondent. However, the Tribunal observed that the Corporate Debtor admitted the business relationship and the outstanding debt. There was no pre-existing dispute regarding the operational debt, and the transactions were reflected in the bank statements. 5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and declaration of moratorium: The Tribunal admitted the petition and initiated the CIRP, declaring a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. The prohibitions included the institution of suits, transferring assets, enforcing security interests, and recovering property from the Corporate Debtor. Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain was appointed as the IRP, and the Operational Creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- with the IRP for immediate expenses. The order was to be communicated to all relevant parties and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the application met the requirements of Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, and there was no pre-existing dispute regarding the operational debt. The CIRP was initiated, and a moratorium was declared, with Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain appointed as the IRP. The Operational Creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- with the IRP to cover immediate expenses.
|
