2022 (7) TMI 1035 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - quantum of debt - HELD THAT - A perusal of counter filed by Corporate Debtor shows that, the Corporate Debtor has not disputed the debt and only disputed the quantum of the debt. As per Section 5(6) of IBC, dispute if any as to debt, shall be regarding existence of debt. In the case in hand, the existence of debt is not disputed, as according to corporate debtor, the quantum of debt alone is in dispute. Hence, the operational debt in this case remain undisputed stands admitted and established. Since, it is not the case of corporate debtor that it discharged the said debt, the default also stands established. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

Summary

Issues:
Admission of petition under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, existence of operational debt, default in payment by Corporate Debtor, determination of quantum of debt, appointment of Interim Resolution Professional, granting moratorium.

Detailed Analysis:

Admission of Petition under Section 9:
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking admission for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to the alleged default by the Corporate Debtor in payment of an operational debt. The applicant contended that the Respondent defaulted in the payment of a debt amounting to Rs. 3,00,50,089. The Corporate Debtor admitted the debt but disputed the quantum, claiming it to be Rs. 2,50,00,000. The tribunal analyzed the dispute and found that the existence of debt was not disputed, only the quantum was in question. Therefore, the operational debt remained undisputed and established, leading to the admission of the petition under Section 9 of the Code.

Default in Payment by Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor, in its counter, acknowledged the debt but raised concerns about the financial crisis it was facing. Despite admitting the debt, the Corporate Debtor did not dispute the default in payment. The tribunal noted that since the Corporate Debtor did not claim to have discharged the debt, the default was considered established. As a result, the tribunal admitted the petition and declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code.

Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and Granting Moratorium:
Following the admission of the petition, the tribunal issued various directions, including admitting the Corporate Debtor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, prohibiting suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and ensuring the continuity of essential goods or services supply during the moratorium period. The tribunal appointed a specific IRP, directed the petitioner to pay a sum to the IRP, and outlined the effect and duration of the moratorium. These measures were aimed at facilitating the resolution process and protecting the interests of all stakeholders involved.

In conclusion, the tribunal's judgment addressed the issues raised regarding the admission of the petition under Section 9, the determination of operational debt and default by the Corporate Debtor, the appointment of an IRP, and the granting of a moratorium to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The decision provided a comprehensive analysis of the facts and legal provisions, ensuring a fair and transparent resolution process in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.