Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (9) TMI 800 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues:
- Admission of application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority against the Corporate Debtor.
- Existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties prior to the application under Section 9 of the IBC.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Corporate Debtor against the order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority admitting an application under Section 9 of the IBC by an Operational Creditor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor had claimed a principal amount along with interest as on the date of default. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority noted that the Corporate Debtor failed to appear despite multiple opportunities and issued the necessary notices.

2. The Appellant, who is one of the Promotors and Managing Director of the Company, raised two main grounds in challenging the impugned order. Firstly, it was contended that there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties, which was not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant highlighted discrepancies in the invoices submitted by the Operational Creditor and provided evidence of non-receipt of materials against certain invoices.

3. The Respondent No. 1, the Operational Creditor, argued that the Demand Notice was duly served on the Corporate Debtor, who failed to respond or appear before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The Respondent contended that the impugned order was in accordance with the law as the Corporate Debtor did not contest the case or reply to the Demand Notice.

4. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the records, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations case. The Tribunal found that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties, as evidenced by emails exchanged prior to the filing of the Demand Notice. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to consider these emails and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

5. Consequently, the impugned order admitting the application under Section 9 of the IBC was set aside. The Corporate Debtor was released from the CIRP, and actions taken by the Interim Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors were declared illegal. The matter was remitted to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to decide on fees and costs payable to the Interim Resolution Professional, to be borne by the Operational Creditor. The Appeal was allowed with specific directions and observations, with no costs imposed on either party. The Registry was instructed to communicate the Judgment to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, and the Judgment was to be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates