2019 (6) TMI 766 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal Upholds Rental Agreement in Insolvency Case, Rejects Corporate Debtor's Defenses

M. Gagan Bothra And 2 Ors. Versus M/s. Alam Industries (I) Limited

M. Gagan Bothra And 2 Ors. Versus M/s. Alam Industries (I) Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Default in payment of rent by the Corporate Debtor.2. Dispute regarding the payment of rent.3. Validity of the Rent Agreement due to non-registration and insufficient stamping.4. Joint filing of the application by multiple Operational Creditors.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Default in Payment of Rent by the Corporate Debtor:The Operational Creditors claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 38,25,992/- against the Corporate Debtor, who failed to pay the rent as per the Rental Agreement dated 21.04.2012. The Corporate Debtor had been paying the rent regularly till 01.05.2015 but defaulted thereafter. The Operational Creditors sent a Form-3 Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to which the Corporate Debtor did not respond. The Tribunal noted that the Rent Receipt Book evidenced the payment of rent in cash until 07.05.2015, and no further payments were made, thus establishing the default.2. Dispute Regarding the Payment of Rent:The Corporate Debtor's Counsel argued that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the payment of rent, referring to altercations and cross complaints. However, the Tribunal found that these altercations were irrelevant to the default in rental payments. The Corporate Debtor's claim that the rent had been paid in cash until June 2018 was unsupported by any evidence, and thus, the Tribunal rejected this defense as spurious.3. Validity of the Rent Agreement Due to Non-registration and Insufficient Stamping:The Corporate Debtor's Counsel contended that the Rent Agreement was unregistered and insufficiently stamped, making it inadmissible in evidence. However, the Tribunal observed that both parties had signed the agreement and had adhered to its terms, including the yearly rent enhancement. The Corporate Debtor did not object to the agreement's validity at the time of signing or during the period of performance. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the 'Principle of Estoppel,' preventing the Corporate Debtor from raising this objection at a later stage.4. Joint Filing of the Application by Multiple Operational Creditors:The Corporate Debtor's Counsel argued that the Operational Creditors could not jointly file the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditors were co-owners of the property and had jointly signed the Rental Agreement. Therefore, their joint claim was valid and could not be bifurcated into separate claims. The Tribunal held that the application was maintainable under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Operational Creditors had fulfilled all legal requirements for the admission of the application. The Corporate Debtor was found to have defaulted in making the payment of the outstanding debt. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the application and ordered the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), declaring a moratorium as per Section 14 of the I&B Code, 2016. Mr. Swaminathan Venkatraman was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to take charge of the Corporate Debtor's management and proceed with the necessary actions as prescribed under the I&B Code, 2016.