9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 741 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - The Corporate Debtor having received the Demand Notice, did not send any reply nor paid the amount to Operational Creditor. Upon perusal of the Company Petition, this Bench expressed its view with regard to the bar of limitation, for filing the Petition. However, the Petitioner satisfied this Bench with a view that, a fresh computation of limitation period should begin from 15.09.2017, as the date of MOU which was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Hence, the Company Petition being filed on 19.02.2019, is well within the limitation. Thus, Company Petition satisfies all legal requirements for admission. Since the Corporate Debtor did not file any reply, the claim of Operational Creditor remained unchallenged. Hence, this Bench feels that the Petitioner has successfully demonstrated the existence of debt and default committed by the Corporate Debtor in this case - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code based on operational debt. Analysis: The Company Petition was filed by M/s Laxmi Corporation, the Operational Creditor, against M/s. Ambica Polad Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, seeking to initiate CIRP for operational debt amounting to Rs. 29,36,052/-, including interest. The Petitioner provided various documents to establish the existence of the debt, such as invoices, delivery challans, post-dated cheques, a Memorandum of Understanding, and financial statements of the Corporate Debtor. The Petitioner claimed that between September 2010 and March 2014, they supplied goods to the Respondent as per requirements, with payment terms of 30 days from the date of invoices. The Petitioner also mentioned a Running Account maintained for the goods supplied, and highlighted the dishonoring of cheques by the Respondent in 2015. Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed in 2017, outlining payment terms and consequences for non-payment. The Petitioner issued a Demand Notice in 2018 for the default amount, which the Respondent did not reply to. The Petitioner argued that the limitation period should be computed from the date of the MOU in 2017, which was acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor in its financial statements for 2016 and 2018, thereby justifying the timeliness of the application. The Corporate Debtor did not contest the Company Petition, failed to comply with Tribunal orders, and did not appear for the hearing. The Tribunal found the Petitioner's evidence compelling, satisfied the legal requirements for admission, and deemed the claim of the Operational Creditor unchallenged. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the Company Petition, initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, directed the Operational Creditor to deposit initial CIRP costs, imposed restrictions on legal actions against the Corporate Debtor, ordered the continuation of essential supplies, and specified the moratorium period. The management of the Corporate Debtor was vested in the IRP/RP during the CIRP period, and necessary communications were directed to relevant authorities. In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the Company Petition, initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, and issued various orders to facilitate the resolution process while ensuring the protection of the interests of all parties involved.
|
