9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of any resolution. Hence, it is a fit case for admission. In the result the Company Petition is admitted by exercising the powers UIS 9(5)(i) IBC 2016 - CP (IB) No. 109/9/HDB/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - Shri Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, J. For the Petitioner/ Operational Creditor: Shri N.V. Shravan Kumar Adv., Shri Challa Gunaranjan Adv., For the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor: Shri D. NarendarNaik Adv., Shri G Bhupesh Adv. Ms Mytri Indukuru Adv., Ms .Anjana Ramnathan Adv., Ms. Mansi Choudhari Adv., ORDER Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, 1. The present Company Petition bearing CP (1B) 109/9/HDB/2017 is filed UIs 9 of IBC 2016 R/W Rule 6 of (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016 is filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited by seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of M/S. Inter Labs (India) Private Limited, under the provision of IBC 2016. 2. The Brief Facts, leading to the filing of present Company Petition are as follows: a) Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited (Petitioner Herein) is Registered under the provisions of Company Act 1956, M/S. Inter Labs (India) Private Limited (Respondent Herein) is Regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due on the last date of Transaction, which is 24/11/2015. The Respondent, after re-conciliation of accounts, has admitted the debt of ₹ 2,64,41 ,770/-. h) When the Respondent failed to adhere to terms and conditions of Agreement under subsequent under taking/assurance, the Petitioner terminated the Agreement Dated; 25th May 2007 vide its letter dated 26/09/2016 addressed to Respondent, i) The Petitioner got issued a Demand Notice dated: 18/03/2017 to the Respondent, UIS 8(i) of IBC 2016 R/w. Clause (a) of sub rule (i) of rule 5 of I B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. In pursuance to this Demand Notice, the Respondent got issued a reply dated: 27/03/2017 and the Petitioneragain got issued a rejoinder to the Reply Notice vide its letter dated: 03/04/2017 by denying all the allegations made by Respondent j) Aggrieved by the Non-Payment of admitted debt, the Petitioner has filed the Present Petition by seeking to Initiate insolvency Resolution process against the respondent. 3. The Respondent has filed a reply affidavit dated: 28th July 2017, through its Managing Director namely D. Srinivasulu. The following are main contents raised in the reply;: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, Ms Mansi Choudhary, learned counsels for the Respondent/ Corporate Debtors. 5. Shri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for Petitioner submits that the petitioner has complied with all the provisions of Section 90f IBC. The Debt in Question was admitted one, and the respondent simply denied the existence of debt without showing any substantial evidence in their support. He further submits that he hasissued a rejoinder dated: 03/04/2017.He has stated the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement is a business process with respect to conversion, in which Raw Material would be supplied to Respondent by Petitioner on a job work basis, and the Respondent has to manufacture furnished product i.e., 'Q-Acid'. So, the Petitioner has to pay conversion cost. It is further alleged that entire facility and machinery was sold, and there was no Manufacturing Facility available as of date'. Therefore, it is contended that theRespondentbecame insolvent, and it would require winding up in interest of Creditors and Public at Large. 6. Shri D. Narendar Naik Adv., learned counsel for Respondent, while reiterating the averments in their reply, has further stated that there is no admitted de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show that there is an admitted debt and the respondent is unable to pay debt in question. 10. The Respondent, though given sufficient time by this Tribunal to come out with any solution to resolve outstanding dues, have not come with any solution,more over they have raised un-tenable and baseless grounds. In fact, the respondent has admitted that they are unable to clear outstanding due to several difficulties. Though circumstances warrant that the Company is liable to be liquidated, an effort should be made through CIRP to find any possibility of any resolution. Hence, it is a fit case for admission. 11. In the result the Company Petition bearing CP No. CP (1B) No. 109/9/HDB/2017 is admitted by exercising the powers UIS 9(5)(i) IBC 2016 and pass the following directions: 1) Appointed Shri M. Vijay Bhaskar Rao (Registration No. IBBl/lPA-002/lP-N00160/2017-18/10429) H.No. 8-1-301/26, Lakshmi Nagar Colony (Film Nagar Down), Shaikpet Nala, Hyderabad to act as Interim Resolution professional with a direction to initiate appropriate action contemplated in CIRP in accordance with extant provisions of IBC, 2016 and other relevant rules. 2) We hereby declare the following Mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
