9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 320 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - As per the bank statements of the Financial Creditor, the amount i.e. Rs. 3,30,00,000/- was withdrawn on 22.07.2020, vide Cheque No. 000029, in the name of Sehrawat Associates Pvt. Ltd. who is not the Corporate Debtor in the present petition. But in Part IV of the Application, the Financial Creditor has stated that the total amount of debt due from the Corporate Debtor i.e. Optiemus Infracom Limited is Rs. 3,30,00,000/- and the date of disbursement was 21.07.2020 vide cheque No. 000029 drawn on Bank of Baroda. As sufficient material evidence is not placed before this Tribunal to appreciate the averments made in the Application against the Corporate Debtor and as the Corporate Debtor has also not acknowledged the debt due in any form, this Application under section 7 of the Code is devoid of merits. Hence, it is not a fit case to entertain this application under section 7 of the Code. Hence, the present application is dismissed without cost.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The application was filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Code against the Corporate Debtor for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Financial Creditor extended an interest-free loan to the Corporate Debtor based on assurances from the Managing Director. Despite multiple promises and delays in repayment, the borrowed amount was not repaid. The Financial Creditor issued a demand notice, which was denied by the Corporate Debtor, claiming an adjustment towards interest on loans extended to separate corporate entities years ago. The Financial Creditor contended that the adjustment was mala fide and contrary to accounting standards. The Operational Creditor argued that the Corporate Debtor maliciously booked the loan amount as income without basis. The Operational Creditor then filed the application under Section 9 for the claimed operational debt. However, upon review, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence presented. The bank statements showed the amount was withdrawn in the name of a different entity, not the Corporate Debtor mentioned in the application. As there was insufficient evidence to support the claims against the Corporate Debtor, and the debt was not acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor, the Tribunal deemed the application under Section 7 as lacking merit and dismissed it without costs. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, focusing on the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
