Tribunal Admits Insolvency Petition Against Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal admitted the petition filed by Financial Creditor, DMI Finance Private Limited, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Corporate Debtor, M/S Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd. The objections raised by the Corporate Debtor were deemed invalid, and the application fulfilled all requirements for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Mr. Paraveen Bansal was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional, and a moratorium was declared under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code. The petition was granted, allowing the commencement of the insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Validity of claims and objections raised by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Applicability of the Piramal Judgment and its relevance to the present case.
4. Compliance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and declaration of moratorium.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Financial Creditor, DMI Finance Private Limited, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M/S Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd. The application was supported by the claim that a sum of Rs. 29,53,87,663.67 along with interest was due from the Corporate Debtor.

2. Validity of claims and objections raised by the Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor raised several objections against the claim filed by the Financial Creditor, including:
- The association with the Ninex Group and the financial exposures extended to various companies within the group.
- Repayment of loans by some group companies and the ongoing CIRP of others.
- Allegations of unethical practices and misconduct by the Financial Creditor.
- Disputes regarding an agreement to sell a plot of land and the financial transactions related to it.
- Claims of compensation for breach of contract and the invocation of the "group of companies doctrine."

3. Applicability of the Piramal Judgment and its relevance to the present case:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the present application was not maintainable based on the Piramal Judgment, which held that CIRP against the corporate guarantor and the borrower cannot commence simultaneously. However, the Financial Creditor argued that the Piramal Judgment was no longer a valid precedent, citing the recent judgment in State Bank of India V. Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd., which disagreed with the earlier view. The Financial Creditor also referenced the Insolvency Law Committee Report of February 2020, which supported the right to simultaneous remedies against both the debtor and the surety.

4. Compliance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Tribunal found that all requirements of Section 7 of the Code for the initiation of CIRP by a Financial Creditor were fulfilled. The application was complete as per Section 7 (2) of the Code and other conditions prescribed by Rule 4 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The Tribunal noted the existence of a financial debt, the occurrence of a default, and the completeness of the application.

5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and declaration of moratorium:
The Tribunal admitted the petition and appointed Mr. Paraveen Bansal as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of the Code, the IRP was directed to make a public announcement regarding the admission of the application. A moratorium was declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code, imposing prohibitions on suits, transfers, encumbrances, and recovery actions against the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Creditor was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lacs with the IRP to meet expenses, and the IRP was instructed to perform his functions with integrity and honesty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the application by the Financial Creditor was complete and satisfied the requirements under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The objections raised by the Corporate Debtor were found to be invalid, and the petition was admitted, leading to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/S Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

---