Tata Blue Scope Steel's Insolvency Petition Admitted Against Richa Industries

The tribunal admitted the petition filed by M/s Tata Blue Scope Steel Limited under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against M/s Richa Industries Limited. It validated the demand notice issued by the operational creditor, dismissing the respondent's challenge on the notice's authority. The tribunal ruled no evidence of a pre-existing dispute, citing the need to reject applications in case of genuine disputes. The appointment of Mr. Arvind Kumar as the Interim Resolution Professional was approved after rectifying initial defects in the filed form. The matter proceeded for the declaration of moratorium and formal IRP appointment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the person filing the petition.
2. Validity of the demand notice.
3. Existence of a pre-existing dispute.
4. Appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the Person Filing the Petition:
The petition was filed by M/s Tata Blue Scope Steel Limited under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiating insolvency resolution against M/s Richa Industries Limited. Initially, there was no specific decision by the company for filing the petition, but a fresh resolution authorizing Mr. Riten Choudhury to represent the company was filed, removing the defect.

2. Validity of the Demand Notice:
The demand notice was issued by Ms. Sonali Thakur, Assistant Manager-Legal of the operational creditor. The respondent contested the authority of Ms. Thakur to issue the notice. However, the tribunal noted that the operational creditor had adopted the notice and filed the petition, thus sustaining the validity of the notice.

3. Existence of a Pre-Existing Dispute:
The respondent disputed the liability, claiming a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality and specifications of the supplied material. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that the adjudicating authority must reject the application if a genuine dispute exists. The tribunal found no evidence of a pre-existing dispute, as the respondent had acknowledged the debt and failed to raise any quality issues before the demand notice.

4. Appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The petitioner proposed Mr. Arvind Kumar as the IRP. Initial defects in the Form 2 furnished by Mr. Kumar were rectified, and the tribunal found the revised Form 2 to be in order. Mr. Kumar declared that he was working as the Resolution Professional in five proceedings and had no pending disciplinary actions against him.

Conclusion:
The tribunal admitted the petition, finding no pre-existing dispute and validating the demand notice. The matter was listed for passing a formal order of declaring moratorium and for the appointment of the IRP.

---