2020 (1) TMI 1494 - Tri - Companies Law

Tribunal Admits Petition under Insolvency Code for Default in Payment

Keshav Enterprises Versus Alupan Composite Panels Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal admitted the petition under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, based on a default in payment by the Corporate Debtor. The ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - debt is due and default or not - Service of demand notice - minimum threshold limit fixed under IBC - HELD THAT:- Since the debt is due and default was admitted by the Corporate Debtor/respondent in his reply. So, under such circumstances, the petitioner has completed all the provisions mentioned in section 8 of the IBC, 2016 and there is default of payment which was due. Hence, we think it proper to admit this petition. It is seen that, there is default in payment & there is some operational debt of ₹ 20,87,082/- and no dispute has been raised by the Corporate Debtor. Since, the amount in default is more than ₹ 1,00,000/- is being the minimum threshold limit fixed under IBC, 2016. Under such circumstances this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to admit this petition and initiate CIRP of the respondent. Petition admitted - moratorium declared. Issues:1. Admittance of petition under Section 8 of IBC, 2016 based on default of payment.2. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to default in payment.3. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and related responsibilities.4. Implementation of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016.Admittance of Petition under Section 8 of IBC, 2016:The judgment revolves around a petition filed under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) where the petitioner claimed a default in payment by the Corporate Debtor. The petitioner submitted invoices as evidence of the debt, and the Corporate Debtor admitted to the debt due to financial crisis. The Tribunal considered the submissions and admitted the petition, stating that all provisions under Section 8 of IBC were fulfilled, and there was a default in payment.Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):The Tribunal noted the default in payment amounting to Rs. 20,87,082, with no dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor. As the debt exceeded the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,000 set by IBC, the Tribunal decided to admit the petition and initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent. Consequently, a moratorium under Section 14 of IBC was imposed, halting various actions against the Corporate Debtor.Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and Responsibilities:In compliance with the judgment, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP was tasked with fulfilling statutory requirements, particularly under Sections 15, 17, and 18 of the IBC. The IRP's details were specified for communication purposes, and the Operational Creditor undertook to deposit the IRP's fee within two weeks, to be reimbursed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as part of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution (CIR) costs.Implementation of Moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016:The Tribunal ordered the implementation of a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, effective immediately. This moratorium included staying legal proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, preventing the disposal of assets, and ensuring the continuity of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor. The order specified the duration of the moratorium until the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, with provisions for its cessation upon approval of a resolution plan or liquidation order by the Adjudicating Authority. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the IRP and both parties for compliance.