Tribunal admits CIRP application, appoints IRP, imposes moratorium for default in operational debt.

The tribunal admitted the application, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent due to default in payment of operational debt. Ms. Rashmi Agarwalla was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and a moratorium was implemented under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The operational creditor was directed to deposit funds with the IRP for expenses. The tribunal found the respondent in default and ordered communication of the decision to relevant parties and updating of the corporate debtor's status on the Registrar of Companies' website.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Outstanding operational debt and default in payment.
3. Validity of reverse sales claimed by the respondent.
4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
5. Implementation of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016:
The application was filed by M/s Health Care at Home India Private Limited under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Satyam Drugs Pvt. Ltd. The applicant, an operational creditor, provided para-medical staff, medical supplies, and equipment, and claimed that the respondent failed to pay for the goods supplied.

2. Outstanding Operational Debt and Default in Payment:
The applicant detailed the invoices raised against the respondent, totaling significant sums, with specific invoices and amounts listed. Despite partial payments, a substantial outstanding amount remained unpaid. The respondent issued several cheques towards part payment, which were dishonored upon presentation. The applicant initiated complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were pending adjudication.

3. Validity of Reverse Sales Claimed by the Respondent:
The respondent, in its reply, claimed an outstanding recoverable amount from the applicant due to reverse sales, asserting a net payable sum of Rs. 27,08,891/-. The applicant denied the existence of such reverse sales and maintained that the respondent was attempting to evade liability by offering a misleadingly low settlement amount compared to the legitimate claim of Rs. 2,02,07,685.96/-.

4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The tribunal noted that the applicant had not proposed any Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Consequently, the bench appointed Ms. Rashmi Agarwalla as the IRP, directing her to undertake the necessary steps as per the statute, specifically under Sections 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 of the Code.

5. Implementation of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016:
Upon admitting the application, the tribunal declared a moratorium as per Section 14(1) of the Code, prohibiting actions against the respondent as per the provisions of Section 14(1)(a) to (d). The tribunal directed the operational creditor to deposit Rs. 2 lacs with the IRP to cover the expenses for performing her functions, subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors.

Conclusion:
The tribunal found the application complete and established the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt. The tribunal admitted the application, initiating the CIRP against the respondent, and directed the registry to communicate the order to relevant parties and update the status of the corporate debtor on the Registrar of Companies' website.

---