9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebt and there is no pre-existing dispute between the parties. Whether this application was filed within limitation? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the case file shows that the application was filed vide Diary No.00757 dated 22.04.2022 (refiled on 20.05.2022), whereas the date of default is 17.12.2019, therefore, this Adjudicating Authority finds that this application has been filed within limitation. There is a total unpaid operational debt (in default) of ₹1,35,15,157/-. As noted above, the operational creditor has provided the details of the debt due and has also annexed with the petition copy of ledger account statement, and invoices. Accordingly, the petitioner/operational creditor has established the debt and the default, which is more than Rupees one lakh i.e. the threshold limit - It is seen that the petition preferred by the petitioner is complete in all respects. The material on record clearly goes to show that the respondent committed default in payment of the claimed operational debt even after demand made by the petitioner. In view of the satisfaction of the conditions provided for in Section 9(5)(i) of the Code, the petition for initiation of the CIRP in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e construction site. It has been stated in the petition that the corporate debtor had issued work order for temporary construction of boundary wall at its project named Aravali Garden Project in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan on 15.03.2016 and the initial work order was for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. 4. Further, it has been stated that on completion of work by the operational creditor, the business relations between the parties started to prosper and the corporate debtor approached the operational creditor and assigned the work of construction of flats at its project named Aravali Garden Project in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and that the corporate debtor had released a single payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.10.2016. In Part-IV of Form 5, it has been stated that the amount of debt fell due against unpaid Bills for the transactions held during the period from May 2016 to November 2019 for the supply of goods/materials services and is still due up to the date of demand notice, the details whereof are as under:- 1st April, 2013 to 31st March, 2021 Date Particulars Amount 02.05.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the outstanding dues of the operational creditor. However, still the corporate debtor failed to deliver and breached the terms and conditions in the MOU. Thus, in the petition, the operational creditor is claiming an amount of Rs.1,35,15,157/- out of which Rs.1,29,49,507/- is towards construction material supplied for the construction of flats and Rs.5,65,650/- is towards supply of security guards provided to the corporate debtor from 02.05.2016. 6. It has been alleged that corporate debtor issued a letter pertaining to balance confirmation in its book of accounts dated 10.05.2021, thereby confirming that the amount due is unpaid. Since, the respondent/corporate debtor failed to make the payment, the operational creditor sent a Demand Notice dated 19.02.2022 in Form 3 (Annexure P-7) on the registered office of the corporate debtor as well as at the address of its Director and also through e-mail, calling upon the corporate debtor to repay the unpaid operational debt in full within10 days from the date of receipt of notice and the same was duly delivered 21.02.2022. Copy of demand notice, postal receipts, tracking details and email have been annexed as Annexure P-7. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The next issue for consideration is whether the operational debt was disputed by the corporate debtor. The petitioner/operational creditor has filed an affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) of the Code, wherein it has been deposed that the it has not received any reply to the demand notice dated 19.02.2022 and that no notice has been given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt and there is no pre-existing dispute between the parties. 12. The other issue for consideration is whether this application was filed within limitation. A perusal of the case file shows that the application was filed vide Diary No.00757 dated 22.04.2022 (refiled on 20.05.2022), whereas the date of default is 17.12.2019, therefore, this Adjudicating Authority finds that this application has been filed within limitation. 13. We have gone through the contents of the application filed in Form 5 and find the same to be complete. As discussed above, there is a total unpaid operational debt (in default) of ₹1,35,15,157/-. As noted above, the operational creditor has provided the details of the debt due and has also annexed with the petition copy of ledger account s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Security Interest Act, 2002; and d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. 18. It is further directed that the supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. The provisions of Section 14(3) shall, however, not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any operational sector regulator and to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. 19. The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33 as the case may be. 20. The Law Research Associate of this Tribunal has checked the credentials of Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar from the online database provided by the IBBI and there is nothing adverse against him. In view of the above, we appoint Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority directs the ex-management and promoters of the corporate debtor to specifically comply with the provisions of the Sub Regulation (2) of Regulation 4 of the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016. This Adjudicating Authority further directs that the Interim Resolution Professional should also make all efforts simultaneously to retrieve the required information from the computerized data of the corporate debtor from the systems handed over to the Interim Resolution Professional after initiation of CIRP. For retrieving relevant information, the Interim Resolution Professional may take the help of any digital forensic companies from the empanelled list available with the Registry of this Adjudicating Authority, if required. This is imperative for meeting the Code s objectives for maximising the value of the assets of the corporate debtor and completing the resolution process in a time-bound manner. The Interim Resolution professional is also directed to make a specific mention of non-compliance, if any, in this regard in his status report filed before this Adjudicating Authority immediately after a month of the initiation of the CIRP and move a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
