2022 (7) TMI 1123 - 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 - HELD THAT - The defense raised by the Corporate Debtor is moonshine defense in response to the Demand Notice dated 04.07.2019 to shy away from the liability - this Bench is of the considered opinion that there is no dispute regarding the fact that Corporate Debtor owes money to the Financial Creditor - The Corporate Debtor while replying to the demand notice has not brought to light any pre-existing dispute as required under the Code. The application made by the Operational Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of minimum amount stipulated under section 4(1) of the IBC. Therefore, the default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the Petition. In view of this, this Adjudicating Authority admits this Petition and orders initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. Petition admitted - Moratorium declared.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Petition.
2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default.
3. Pre-existing Dispute.
4. Admission of the Petition and Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
5. Moratorium and Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Petition:
The petition was filed by Ruptub Solutions Private Limited under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of CIRP against Panoramic Holidays Limited. The Respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office in Mumbai, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default:
The Petitioner raised invoices for services provided to the Respondent, who defaulted on payments starting from 12.12.2017. Despite repeated reminders and assurances from the Respondent, the default continued. The outstanding amount as of 01.09.2019 was INR 57,02,494.33 along with interest at 18%. The Respondent acknowledged its liability in various correspondences, including emails dated 01.03.2018 and 03.05.2018. The Petitioner issued multiple demand notices, but the Respondent failed to clear the dues within the statutory period.

3. Pre-existing Dispute:
The Respondent's reply dated 15.07.2019 denied any liability, which contradicted its earlier admissions. The Tribunal noted that any dispute must pre-exist before the issuance of the demand notice, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in "Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited." Since the Respondent did not raise any dispute before the demand notice, the Tribunal concluded that no genuine dispute existed.

4. Admission of the Petition and Initiation of CIRP:
The Tribunal found the petition complete in all respects, showing that the Corporate Debtor was in default of a debt exceeding the minimum threshold under Section 4(1) of the IBC. The Tribunal admitted the petition and ordered the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

5. Moratorium and Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
Upon admission of the petition, a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was declared, prohibiting:
- Institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.
- Transfer or disposal of the Corporate Debtor's assets.
- Foreclosure or enforcement of security interests.
- Recovery of property occupied by the Corporate Debtor.

The Tribunal appointed Mrs. Rashmi Pushpak Gangwal as the IRP to carry out the functions under IBC. The management of the Corporate Debtor was vested in the IRP, and the Operational Creditor was directed to deposit INR 3,00,000 with the IRP for expenses related to public notice and claims. The Registry was instructed to communicate the order to relevant parties and update the Corporate Debtor's Master Data.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the petition filed by Ruptub Solutions Private Limited, initiating CIRP against Panoramic Holidays Limited, and imposed a moratorium while appointing an IRP to manage the process. The decision was based on the established default and absence of any pre-existing dispute.

← Previous Next →