TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Orders Timely Resolution of Insolvency Case; Tribunal Takes Action</h1> <h3>Belthangady Taluk Rubber Grower’s Marketing & Processing Co-operative Limited Versus M/s. Falcon Tyres Ltd., and Falcon Tyres Employees Union, C/o Falcon Tyres Ltd.</h3> Belthangady Taluk Rubber Grower’s Marketing & Processing Co-operative Limited Versus M/s. Falcon Tyres Ltd., and Falcon Tyres Employees Union, C/o Falcon ... Issues:1. Initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.2. Failure of the Respondent Company to file objections.3. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.4. Declaration of moratorium and related directions.Issue 1: Initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy CodeThe petitioner, an Operational Creditor, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code against the Respondent Company. The Respondent Company failed to file objections despite multiple opportunities given by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within a specified timeframe. The petitioner provided all necessary information for initiating the Insolvency Resolution Process, and the Tribunal found that the corporate debtor had failed to discharge its liability, resulting in a default amounting to Rs. 1,18,34,618.66. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the petition, declaring a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code.Issue 2: Failure of the Respondent Company to file objectionsDespite being given multiple opportunities, the Respondent Company, Falcon Tyres Ltd., failed to file objections to the petition. The Tribunal recorded that the objections were not filed and proceeded with the case based on the petitioner's submissions. The lack of objections from the Respondent Company contributed to the Tribunal's decision to admit the petition and declare a moratorium.Issue 3: Appointment of Interim Resolution ProfessionalThe Tribunal appointed Mr. Anand Ramachandra Bhat as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the case. The petitioner had named Mr. Bhat for this role, and the Tribunal found the appointment appropriate based on the information provided. Mr. Bhat's responsibilities as the IRP include carrying out functions as specified under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.Issue 4: Declaration of moratorium and related directionsUpon admitting the petition, the Tribunal issued several directions related to the moratorium. These included prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits against the corporate debtor, ensuring the supply of essential goods or services is not interrupted, and specifying the effect of the moratorium until the completion of the insolvency resolution process or liquidation of the corporate debtor. The Tribunal also mandated the immediate public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process as per the Code's requirements.In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the petition for initiating the Insolvency Resolution Process, citing the Respondent Company's failure to discharge its liability. The appointment of the IRP, declaration of a moratorium, and issuance of related directions were pivotal in ensuring the orderly resolution of the insolvency proceedings as per the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.
TaxTMI 