Tribunal admits application, initiates Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC

The tribunal admitted the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent for defaulting on unsecured loans. The tribunal appointed an Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional and implemented a moratorium under Section 13(1)(a) of the IBC. Respondent's objections were dismissed, confirming the existence of a financial debt and default. The application was disposed of with no costs, with directions for CIRP commencement and communication of the order to relevant parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount claimed by the applicant constitutes a "financial debt."
2. Whether there was a default in payment of the financial debt by the respondent.
3. Validity of the objections raised by the respondent regarding the application’s completeness and the nature of the debt.
4. Appointment of an Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).
5. Implementation of a moratorium under Section 13(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Financial Debt:
The applicant, V.R. Polyfab Private Limited, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent, Sadbhav Enterprise Private Limited. The applicant claimed that the respondent had taken unsecured loans totaling Rs. 5,50,44,500 from 2014 to 2017 and had defaulted on repayments. The tribunal examined the evidence, including ledger accounts, Form 26AS, and interest calculation sheets, and concluded that the amounts given by the applicant to the respondent constituted "financial debt" as defined in Clause (a) of sub-section (8) of Section 5 of the IBC. The tribunal noted that the respondent had deducted TDS on the interest payable on the loans, further affirming the existence of a financial debt.

2. Default in Payment:
The tribunal considered whether the respondent had defaulted on the repayment of the financial debt. The applicant provided evidence of repeated reminders to the respondent for clearing the outstanding amount of Rs. 4,47,85,703 with 9% interest, which the respondent failed to pay. The tribunal referred to the judgment in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, where it was held that the adjudicating authority must ascertain and record satisfaction as to the occurrence of default before admitting an application. The tribunal found that the respondent had defaulted in repaying the financial debt to the applicant.

3. Objections by Respondent:
The respondent raised several objections, including the claim that the debt did not qualify as a financial debt and that the applicant approached the tribunal with unclean hands. The respondent argued that there were mutual obligations and transactions between the parties, including a partnership firm and leased property. The tribunal noted that the respondent's objections did not negate the existence of the financial debt. The tribunal also addressed the respondent's contention that the application was incomplete, stating that the applicant had provided sufficient documentation to support the claim of financial debt.

4. Appointment of Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP):
The tribunal appointed Shri Umesh Ved as the Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) under Section 13(1)(c) of the IBC. The IRP was directed to cause a public announcement of the initiation of CIRP and call for submission of claims under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

5. Implementation of Moratorium:
The tribunal ordered a moratorium under Section 13(1)(a) of the IBC, prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, transferring or disposing of assets, actions to foreclose or enforce security interests, and recovery of property by owners or lessors. The moratorium was to remain in force until the completion of the CIRP, subject to the proviso under sub-section (4) of Section 14.

Conclusion:
The application was admitted under Section 7(5) of the IBC, and the tribunal directed the implementation of the CIRP, appointment of the IRP, and enforcement of the moratorium. The objections raised by the respondent were dismissed, and the tribunal found that the applicant had established the existence of a financial debt and the occurrence of default. The application was disposed of with no order as to costs, and copies of the order were to be communicated to the applicant, respondent, and the IRP.

---