9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 905 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - time limitation - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - In the present case, the occurrence of default is evidenced by the copy of Certificates of all financial creditors issued by the corporate debtor (Annexure B), establishing the relationship between the parties and date of redemption as promised by the Corporate Debtor. Whether the present application has been filed within limitation? - HELD THAT - It can be seen from the records that corporate debtor had to pay back the invested amount to Mr. Dhan Kunwar Verma on 05.11.2019. Further, details with respect to other Financial Creditors about the allotment, amount paid and date of default is mentioned at pages 37-50 of the petition. True Copy of the Certificates of all financial creditors has been attached at Annexure B, whereas the present petition has been filed vide Diary No. 0902109003652021 dated 18.06.2021. Therefore, the present petition is filed within limitation. Whether the present petition 'by investors who are the creditors of same class is maintainable? - HELD THAT - In the present case, more than 132 creditors of same class who have approached this Authority for the redressal of their grievances. In view of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020 dated 16.08.2019 by which 1st Proviso to Sec. 7(1) was added which was upheld by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in MANISH KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 2021 (1) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT , the petitioners being more than one hundred of such creditors in the same class are eligible to file the present petition under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016. Moreover, no such objection on the maintainability of the petition has been raised by respondent as it proceeded against ex-parte. Thus, the application filed in the prescribed Form No. 1 is found to be complete. The present petition being complete and having established the default in payment of the Financial Debt and default amount being above threshold limit, the petition is admitted in terms of Section 7(5) of the IBC and accordingly, moratorium is declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues involved:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a Corporate Debtor. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Filing of Petition: The petition was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Financial Creditor and others against the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was involved in an investment scheme where it failed to pay the maturity amount to the Financial Creditors, leading to a default. The petition provided details of the financial debt and default, establishing the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Default and Limitation: The occurrence of default was evidenced by certificates issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditors. The petition was filed within the limitation period as the default date was mentioned, and the petitioners had invested in the scheme during 2011-2012. The petition contained details of the default amount and the date of filing, ensuring compliance with the limitation requirements. 3. Maintainability of the Petition: The petition was filed jointly by more than 132 creditors of the same class, meeting the criteria under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020. The respondent did not raise any objections to the maintainability of the petition, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority. 4. Admittance of the Petition and Moratorium: The petition was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority based on the established default in payment of financial debt. The moratorium was declared under Section 14 of the Code, imposing restrictions on legal actions against the Corporate Debtor, asset transfers, and security enforcement. The order of moratorium was effective until the completion of the resolution process or liquidation. 5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: Mr. Anurag Nirbhaya was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional after verification of his credentials. The IRP was directed to undertake necessary steps mandated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, specifically under relevant sections. The IRP was tasked with collating claims, constituting a Committee of Creditors, and submitting progress reports to the Tribunal. 6. Compliance and Expenses: The ex-management and promoters of the Corporate Debtor were directed to comply with regulations, and any non-compliance was to be reported by the IRP. Financial Creditors were instructed to deposit a specified sum with the IRP to cover expenses. The amount was subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors at the conclusion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 7. Conclusion: The petition was allowed, admitted, and necessary orders were issued for the resolution process, compliance, and financial arrangements. The parties were directed to receive copies of the order, and the IRP was informed accordingly. This comprehensive analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment, including jurisdiction, default, maintainability, admittance of the petition, moratorium, appointment of IRP, compliance requirements, and financial arrangements.
|
