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>Application for Insolvency Process Dismissed Due to Related Party Transactions and Malicious Intent</h1> <h3>Zoom Communications Private Limited Versus Par Excellence Real Estate Private Limited.</h3> Zoom Communications Private Limited Versus Par Excellence Real Estate Private Limited. - TMI Issues:Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 based on an operational debt claim.Analysis:1. The Applicant, a communication company, filed an application seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, a real estate company, for non-payment of an operational debt related to procuring a loan.2. The Applicant alleged that despite acknowledging the debt and making part-payment, the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the outstanding amount, leading to the issuance of a demand notice under the IBC, 2016.3. The Corporate Debtor objected to the application primarily on the grounds of limitation, claiming no debt was due and payable to the Applicant.4. To overcome the limitation hurdle, the Applicant presented evidence of part-payment, an acknowledgment of debt, and email correspondence from the Corporate Debtor.5. The Tribunal allowed additional documents to be filed by the Applicant to demonstrate the acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its balance sheets for multiple financial years.6. During the examination of the Corporate Debtor's balance sheet, it was revealed that both the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor had a common director, raising concerns about related party transactions.7. The Tribunal discovered that the common director was involved in both companies at the time of the disputed transaction, leading to the conclusion that the transaction was a sham.8. Due to the related party nature of the transaction and the malicious intent behind initiating the insolvency resolution process, the Tribunal dismissed the application and imposed a cost on the Applicant.9. A show cause notice was issued under Section 65(1) of the IBC, 2016 to both companies and the common director, directing them to explain why penalties should not be imposed for fraudulent initiation of the insolvency resolution process.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, evidence presented, findings of the Tribunal, and the ultimate decision regarding the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
