9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 867 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Operational Debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The Corporate Debtor has committed default in payment of the operational debt which is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. Further in the present case it is seen from the records that the Corporate Debtor has not preferred to reply to the Demand Notice issued by the Operational Creditor in spite of receiving the same. Further in relation to the Pecuniary Jurisdiction even though the Threshold Limit has been raised to 1 Crore as and from 24.03.2020 by virtue of a Notification issued under Section 4 of IBC 2016 as regards the present Application it is seen that the default has arisen well before the Notification effected in increasing the threshold limit from 1 lakh to 1 crore as on and from 24.03.2020 and the claim made thereof in the Petition filed on 30.01.2020 which exceeds a sum of 1 lakh this Tribunal has got the Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain this Petition as filed by the Operational Creditor. The Petition as filed by the Operational Creditor is required to be admitted under Section 9(5) of the IBC 2016 - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
1. Application filed by Operational Creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor. 2. Details of Operational Debt claimed by Operational Creditor against Corporate Debtor. 3. Documents filed to prove the existence of Operational Debt. 4. Default in payment by Corporate Debtor and misappropriation of goods. 5. Lack of appearance by Corporate Debtor and admission of the Petition by Tribunal. 6. Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional. 7. Moratorium period and directions for payment to Interim Resolution Professional. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an application filed by an Operational Creditor seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Operational Creditor has claimed a specific sum as Operational Debt along with interest, and the Corporate Debtor is alleged to have defaulted on payment obligations. 2. The Operational Creditor provided details of the Operational Debt, including invoices, purchase orders, correspondences, and ledger statements, to substantiate the claim against the Corporate Debtor. The documents presented by the Operational Creditor aimed to prove the existence of the debt owed by the Corporate Debtor. 3. The Application highlighted instances where the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments for goods received, issued insufficient fund cheques, and did not return equipment provided by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor alleged that the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt but failed to make payments, leading to the default. 4. Despite the absence of the Corporate Debtor during the proceedings, the Tribunal found merit in the Operational Creditor's claims and admitted the Petition. The Tribunal noted the default in payment by the Corporate Debtor and the lack of response to the Demand Notice issued by the Operational Creditor. 5. The Tribunal addressed the Pecuniary Jurisdiction aspect, confirming its authority to entertain the Petition based on the claim amount exceeding the threshold limit applicable at the time of filing. The Tribunal also appointed an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 6. The judgment outlined the implications of the moratorium period, restricting certain actions against the Corporate Debtor during the resolution process. Additionally, the Operational Creditor was directed to make a specified payment to the Interim Resolution Professional to cover necessary expenses. 7. The Tribunal's decision to admit the Application, appoint an Interim Resolution Professional, and enforce the moratorium signifies the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. The judgment ensures compliance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, safeguarding the interests of the Operational Creditor and facilitating the resolution of the debt-related issues.
|
