9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the IBC, 2016 R/w Rule 6 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, inter alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of 'Velankani Electronics Private Limited' (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporate Debtor/Respondent') on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has committed default for a total outstanding amount of Rs. 16,78,006.53 (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand and Six and Paise Fifty Three Only) including an interest of Rs. 1,27,443.53 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Three and Paise Fifty Three Only). 2. Mr. Hari Shankara Narayana, holding the position of Company Commercial & Operation Head has filed this Petition being author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payment. Copy of the email is annexed to the Petition. (5) It is submitted that after demanding payments several times by way of emails, the Petitioner issued Demand Notice dated 05.08.2019 u/s 8 of the Code, 2016. The same was delivered to the Respondent on 06.08.2019. Copy of the Demand Notice along with proof of service is annexed to the Petition. (6) It is further submitted that the Respondent admitted its liability to repay the debt amount and provided payment schedule for the principal amounts due vide email dated 23.08.2019 issued to the Petitioner's counsel in response to the Demand Notice. Copy of the email is annexed to the Petition. (7) It is submitted by the Petitioner that the said payment proposal was rejected b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded schedule for payment of the amounts due. However, the Petitioner refused the said proposal stating that the interest at 24% p.a. also needs to be paid and the entire amounts should be paid in 3 equated instalments. It is submitted that, had the Petitioner accepted the payment schedule the entire outstanding would have been paid as per the payment schedule by now. (11) It is submitted that the Respondent is a going concern with huge number of employees and the turnover of the Company is Rs. 40 Crore. The Petitioner has unreasonably filed this petition which ought to be dismissed. 4. Heard Shri Uddyam Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner through Video Conference. We have carefully perused the pleadings of both the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited 2018 (1) SCC 353 has inter alia held that I & B Code, 2016 is not intended to be a substitute to a recovery forum and cannot be used to jeopardise the financial health of an otherwise solvent company by pushing it into insolvency. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited (C A) No. 9597 of 2018 dated 23rd October, 2018, (147 CLA 112 (SC) clarified that the Petitioners cannot use IBC either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as substitute for debt enforcement procedures. 7. In the present case the Petitioner has attempted to use the Code only to recover its amounts from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
