9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication under Section 9 has to be filed by Operational Creditors individually and not jointly. Joint application under Section 9 by one or more Operational Creditor is not maintainable - prayer for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against the Corporate Debtor is not sustainable - Application dismissed. - IB-221/ND/2019 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2021 - DR. DEEPTI MUKESH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MS. SUMITA PURKAYASTHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Applicant : Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Adv., Mr. Omar Hooda, Adv., Mr. Aishwarya Mohapatra, Adv., Mr. Imroz Alam, Shriya Raychaudhuri, Adv. ORDER The present application is filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'code') read with Rules 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') by Mr. Yuvraj Agarwal (Director of Adreek Media P Ltd Authorized vide Board Resolution dated 24.10.2019) and Adreek Media P Limited (for brevity 'Applicants') through Mr. Yuvraj Agarwal (Director of Adreek Media P Limited) with a prayer to initiate the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - due to the Operational Creditor and his company within a period of ten days. Instead of making the required payment, the Corporate Debtor caused its advocate to send a Notice of Dispute dated 02.11.2018 in reply to the aforesaid Demand Notice. 6. The Applicant filed the application as Operational Creditors praying for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor for its inability to liquidate their claim of ₹ 25,70,656/-. Notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 29.01.2019 of the Adjudicating Authority and the reply was filed by the Corporate Debtor as on 22.04.2019. The Corporate Debtor in its reply states that the Operational Creditor in the present application is the erstwhile Chief Executive Officer of the Corporate Debtor. 7. As per the averments mentioned in the reply, it is stated that the Operational Creditor No. 1 was appointed as the Chief Executive officer by the Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor vide employment engagement offer letter dated 24 12.2015. The Operational Creditor No. 1 was vested with the responsibility of managing the day to day operations of the Corporate Debtor and was to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Notice clearly stated that the Corporate Debtor had a pre-existing dispute with the Operational Creditor No. 1 as the latter was involved in competing business relationship with companies other than the Corporate Debtor, without the knowledge of the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor No. l clearly acted in gross violation of the terms of the Appointment Letter. 11. It has been submitted that the Corporate Debtor has been investigating all the dealings of Operational Creditor No. 1 for the financial year 2015-2018, 2018-2017 and 2017-2018, i.e the time period it was functioning as the CEO of the Corporate Debtor. It has been discovered that the Operational Creditor No. 1, in complete violation of its employment Appointment letter had provided various direct services to the Corporate Debtors Client, i.e., Entertainment City Limited, without informing the Corporate Debtor. That after terminating the services of the Operational Creditor No. 1, the Corporate Debtor had made numerous efforts to discuss with Entertainment City Limited the malafide activities of the Operational Creditor No. 1 and had sent email dated 28.11.2019 regarding the issue of the Operational Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent of each other. The Operational Creditor No. 1 was using the premises and employees assigned by the Corporate Debtor under the Appointment Letter for his and his company's personal work rather the premises of work was given to the Operational Creditor No. 1 by Entertainment City Limited for his functioning and the same was never given to the Corporate Debtor as the premises belonged to Entertainment City Limited and not Corporate Debtor. 16. It is further submitted that all the invoices raised by the Operational Creditors from April, 2016 onwards, which were duly cleared by the Corporate Debtor, clearly proves that the services were being offered by the Adreek Media Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the Operational Creditor no. 2 and the Operational Creditor no. 1 was working only as a consultant. 17. The date of default is 21.10.2018 which is the date of the last invoice issued which was unpaid, and the present application is filed on 18.12.2018. Hence, the application is not time barred and filed within the period of limitation. The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
