9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 12 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The Operational Creditor has proved the existence of an 'Operational debt' and its 'default' on the part of the Corporate Debtor and in the absence of any objection being raised by the Corporate Debtor, we are of the considered view that the Corporate Debtor has committed 'default' in the repayment of the 'Operational debt' to the Operational Creditor and in the said circumstances we are constrained to initiate the CIRP in relation to the Corporate Debtor - 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 present Application has been filed on 23.01.2020, which is well before the Notification effected in increasing the threshold limit from ₹ 1 lakh to ₹ 1 Crore as on and from 24.03.2020 and as such 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 - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues involved:
Application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor. Detailed Analysis: 1. Identification of Parties: The Application was filed by an Operational Creditor against a Private Limited Company, the Corporate Debtor, seeking initiation of CIRP under the IBC, 2016. 2. Operational Debt Claim: The Operational Creditor claimed a sum of ?9,13,186/- along with interest against the Corporate Debtor for services rendered in handling and delivering shipments. The debt was established through Invoices and Debit Notes presented by the Operational Creditor. 3. Demand Notice and Default: The Operational Creditor issued a statutory Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC, 2016 to the Corporate Debtor, followed by an Affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) indicating the debt and default. Despite serving the notice, the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments or raise any disputes regarding the outstanding amount. 4. Jurisdiction and Limitation: The Application fell within the period of limitation as it was filed before the threshold limit was raised to ?1 Crore. The Tribunal had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Petition and proceed with the case. 5. Admission of Application: The Tribunal found that the Operational Creditor proved the existence of operational debt and default by the Corporate Debtor. As there were no objections raised by the Corporate Debtor, the Tribunal admitted the Application under Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016. 6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional based on the latest list furnished by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, directing the Operational Creditor to pay a specified sum to the Interim Resolution Professional to meet necessary expenses. 7. Moratorium and Further Proceedings: The moratorium under Section 14(1) was imposed on the Corporate Debtor, prohibiting certain actions during the CIRP. The duration of the moratorium was specified, and the Registry was tasked with communicating the Order to relevant parties and authorities. This detailed analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the debt claim, default, jurisdictional considerations, appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional, imposition of moratorium, and communication of the Order to all concerned parties.
|
