9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Neeta Saha v. Ram Niwas Gupta [ 2020 (2) TMI 1442 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ] has held that Proprietary concern being creditor can initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, so this technical defence is not maintainable. Another defence taken was that the Certificate of Information Utility is not produced, however, law does not mandate to produce such Certificate, law requires from the Financial Creditor to produce evidence of the debt and default by the Corporate Debtor, where in this case evidence is produced. Financial Creditor proved that the Corporate Debtor committed default in paying the financial debt of ₹ 37,10,972/-. hence, required to be ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. 4. The Corporate Debtor was served with the Notice of this application. It appeared through Learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Y Divate. He has filed affidavit-in-reply to challenge the maintainability of the application on two technical grounds (a) Proprietary Firm cannot file an application under IB Proceedings. There is no evidence produced as to when the debt was due and payable, hence, there is no default (b) the certificate issued by the Information Utility (IU) is not produced under Section 7 (3) (a) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016, hence, this application is liable to be rejected. 5. We heard Learned Counsel Mr. Vaibhav V Goswamy for the Financial Creditor and Learned Counsel M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted default in paying the financial debt of ₹ 37,10,972/-. hence, required to be admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The application is otherwise complete and defect free. The name of the IRP has been proposed whose consent is at page no.23 of the application, hence, we appoint the same person as IRP against him no disciplinary proceedings are pending. 9. In view of the above facts and legal position applicable thereto, we hold that this application is deserves to be admitted. 10. In the result, the application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stands allowed in terms of following directions: ORDER 1. M/s. Kingston Paptech Pvt. Ltd. the Corporate Debtor is admitted in Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Adjudicating Authority hereby appoint Mr. Tejas K. Shah, having regn, no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00089/2017- 18/10185 to act as an IRP under Section 13(1) (c) of the Code. The IRP did not give his fee schedule. 4. The IRP shall perform all his functions as contemplated, inter-alia, by Sections 17,18,20 21 of the Code. It is further made clear that all personnel connected with Corporate Debtor, its Promoter or any other person associated with management of the Corporate Debtor are under legal obligation under section 19 of the Code extend every assistance and co-operation to the Interim Resolution Professional. Where any personnel of the Corporate Debtor, its Promoter or any other person required to assist or co-operate with IRP, do not as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
