Transfer of Companies Act petition to NCLT upheld despite objections. Admitted for CIRP initiation.

The petition, originally filed under the Companies Act, 1956, was transferred to NCLT, Mumbai, under the I&B Code. The respondent's objections on transfer timing were dismissed. Legal objections on the petition's details were raised, but the petitioner argued they were belated. Dispute over the service date of the original petition arose, with doubts on authenticity. The petitioner demonstrated goods supply and payment default, leading to admission of the petition. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, initiating the CIRP with a moratorium period in place. The Tribunal's detailed analysis resulted in the admission of the petition and commencement of the resolution process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Transfer of petition from High Court to NCLT under I&B Code 2016.
2. Legal objections raised regarding the transfer and maintainability of the petition.
3. Dispute over service of the original petition on the respondent.
4. Merits of the petition filed by the operational creditor.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Transfer of Petition from High Court to NCLT:
The petition, originally filed under the old provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, was transferred to NCLT, Mumbai, in compliance with the provisions of the I&B Code. The respondent raised objections citing the transfer rules notified by the Central Government, arguing that the petition was wrongly transferred as it had already been served before the transfer rules came into effect.

Legal Objections and Maintainability:
The respondent contended that the petition under section 9 was defective, lacking necessary details, including invoices and a demand notice. The respondent also claimed that the petition failed to address disputes, provide bank statements, and allegedly suppressed facts, urging for its rejection. The petitioner, however, argued that objections were raised belatedly and that sufficient opportunities were given to the respondent to defend the case.

Dispute Over Service of Original Petition:
The respondent claimed the original petition was served before the transfer rules were notified, questioning the authenticity of the service date and the document provided as proof. The respondent's objections regarding the service date were scrutinized, and the authenticity of the document was doubted.

Merits of the Petition:
The petitioner demonstrated the supply of goods and default in payment by the respondent, emphasizing the acknowledgment of debt by the respondent. The petitioner highlighted the lack of dispute from the respondent's side and presented evidence supporting the claim for admission of the petition.

Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and Commencement of CIRP:
After considering the facts and circumstances, the bench admitted the petition, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The moratorium period commenced as per the I&B Code, restricting certain actions against the corporate debtor and ensuring the continuation of essential goods or services supply. The order of moratorium was to remain in effect until the completion of the resolution process or liquidation, with immediate action required for the public announcement of the insolvency resolution process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, addressing each aspect of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal.

---