2020 (12) TMI 1053 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - The petitioner has placed on record the last invoice/challan dated 04.03.2016, whereas the instant petition is filed on 19.09.2019 i.e. beyond three years from the date of the last invoice. Therefore, the instant application is barred by limitation. On perusal of the record it is found that the petitioner has claimed interest @ 18% per annum. It is found that the petitioner has failed to put on record any document in support of its claim that interest @ 18% will be levied upon the default, more so when the tax invoice is silent on such aspect, claim of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law - the petitioner has put on record certificate/statement from the bank to the effect no payment is received through RTGS/NEFT during the period from 27.08.2019 to 16.09.2019 which has no relevance with the claim since the transactions had taken place during the period from 18.12.2015 to 04.03.2016. The application, so filed by the applicant is not maintainable - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by operational creditor against corporate debtor for unpaid debt.

Analysis:
The applicant, an operational creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming unpaid debt from the respondent, a company engaged in manufacturing special purpose machinery. The applicant alleged supplying SS scrap to the respondent and issued a demand notice under section 8 of the Code. The applicant provided various documents to support the claim, including invoices, demand notice, correspondence, and bank statements.

The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities, the respondent failed to appear or file a reply, and service was deemed complete. The applicant relied on four tax invoices but failed to submit essential documents like purchase orders and receipts to corroborate the claim. The applicant admitted that the debt fell due on a specific date but lacked evidence for a cash payment received from the respondent. The absence of crucial documents raised doubts about the credibility of the claim.

Further, the Tribunal found that the last invoice was dated beyond three years from the application filing date, rendering the application time-barred. The claim for interest at 18% per annum lacked supporting documentation, making it legally untenable. Additionally, the bank statement provided by the applicant was irrelevant to the claim period, further weakening the case.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the application was not maintainable and dismissed Company Petition (IB) No. 702 of 2019 without costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing complete and verifiable documentation to support claims in insolvency proceedings to ensure the credibility and legality of the application.