Tribunal Admits Petition for Insolvency, Declares Moratorium

The tribunal admitted the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and declared a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Code. Mr. Mahesh Bansal was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional to manage the affairs of the corporate debtor and report regularly to the tribunal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delivery of the demand notice as required by Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Whether the petition is barred by limitation.
3. Existence of a dispute between the parties regarding the payment claimed to be in default.
4. Appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delivery of the Demand Notice:
The respondent-corporate debtor contended that the demand notice was sent to an incorrect address as the registered office had changed prior to the notice. However, the tribunal found that the change of address was updated after the delivery of the demand notice. The tracking report confirmed delivery on 03.01.2018, and there was no indication that the addressee had left the address. The tribunal concluded that the demand notice was duly delivered to the respondent-corporate debtor at the registered address.

2. Whether the Petition is Barred by Limitation:
The respondent-corporate debtor argued that the petition was filed after the expiry of three years from the date of default (10.07.2014). However, the tribunal noted that part payments were made by the respondent from time to time, with the last payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- made on 04.05.2015. This extended the limitation period, making the petition filed on 16.04.2018 within the limitation period. Thus, the tribunal found that the petition was not barred by limitation.

3. Existence of a Dispute:
The respondent-corporate debtor claimed that there was a pre-existing dispute and that certain payments totaling Rs. 22,50,000/- were not accounted for by the petitioner. However, the tribunal found no communication from the respondent indicating that these payments were towards full and final settlement. Additionally, the tribunal noted that the payments were credited to the account of M/s Universal Woollen Mills, a sister concern of the respondent. The tribunal concluded that there was no pre-existing dispute regarding the claim and that the respondent had not raised any dispute before the demand notice or the filing of the petition.

4. Appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The petitioner did not propose the name of an IRP. The tribunal referred to the panel of resolution professionals approved for the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, and appointed Mr. Mahesh Bansal as the IRP. The tribunal directed the IRP to take control of the corporate debtor's assets, make a public announcement, and constitute a committee of creditors. The IRP was also instructed to send progress reports to the tribunal every fortnight.

Conclusion:
The tribunal admitted the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and declared a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Code. The tribunal appointed Mr. Mahesh Bansal as the Interim Resolution Professional and directed him to manage the affairs of the corporate debtor and report regularly to the tribunal.

---