9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 192 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT - In the instant application, from the material placed on record by the Applicant, this Authority is satisfied that the Corporate Debtor committed default in paying the financial debt to the Applicants and the respondent company has acknowledged the debt - In the instant case, the documents produced by the Financial Creditors clearly establish the 'debt' and there is default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the 'financial debt'. There is existence of default and that the application under Section 7(2) of the Code is also complete in all respect - the petitioners/financial creditors having fulfilled all the requirements of Section 7 of the Code, the instant petition deserves to be admitted. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
Petition under section 7 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking reliefs under Section 7(5)(a) and Section 13(l)(a)(b)(c) of the Code. Analysis: 1. Identification of Parties: The petition was filed by Ms. Divya B. Jain, an authorized signatory of the financial creditors, seeking relief under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the respondent, a limited company. 2. Background of the Parties: The petitioners, comprising four private limited companies, had extended unsecured loans to the respondent corporate debtor, which had defaulted on repayment, leading to a total due amount of ?20,04,37,016. 3. Submission of Documents: The petitioners submitted various documents supporting their claim, including board resolutions, authorizations, computation sheets, financial contracts, and communication from the proposed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 4. Acknowledgment of Debt: During the proceedings, the respondent admitted the debt amount, inclusive of contractual interest, leading to the acknowledgment of liability by the corporate debtor. 5. Establishment of Default: The Tribunal found that the corporate debtor had defaulted in paying the financial debt to the petitioners, as evidenced by the documents submitted, establishing the existence of debt and default. 6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: The Tribunal appointed Mr. Vinod Kumar Pukhraj Ambavat as the Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the insolvency resolution process under Section 13(l)(c) of the Code. 7. Admission of Petition: Considering the fulfillment of all requirements under Section 7 of the Code, the Tribunal admitted the petition, declared a moratorium, and prohibited various actions against the corporate debtor as per Section 14 of the Code. 8. Effect of Moratorium: The order of moratorium was effective immediately upon receipt of the authenticated copy, ensuring the continuation of essential services to the corporate debtor and restricting certain actions against its assets. 9. Disposal of Petition: The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and communication of the order was directed to the relevant parties and the appointed Interim Resolution Professional. 10. Registrar of Companies Notification: The Registry was instructed to inform the Registrar of Companies regarding the corporate insolvency resolution process to prevent any proceedings for striking off the name of the respondent company. This detailed analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment delivered by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
|
