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>Tribunal Initiates Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9</h1> <h3>Mr. Harshad V. Vora, Proprietor of Utkarsh Steel Corporation Versus M/s. Bhagwan Motors Private Limited</h3> Mr. Harshad V. Vora, Proprietor of Utkarsh Steel Corporation Versus M/s. Bhagwan Motors Private Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of notice issued under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Application of principles of res judicata.3. Admissibility of the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and declaration of moratorium.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:The initial application filed by the operational creditor was dismissed by the NCLAT on the grounds that the notice under Section 8 was issued by an advocate and not the operational creditor, and that no notice of hearing was issued by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT relied on the decision in 'Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. DF Deutsche Forfait AG,' which held that an advocate without authority from the operational creditor cannot issue such notices. However, this legal position was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 'Macquaire Bank Ltd. v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.,' which held that a demand notice under Section 8 can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor.2. Application of Principles of Res Judicata:The respondent argued that the principles of res judicata applied since the previous order was not challenged further and had become final. However, the Tribunal found that the earlier dismissal was not on merits but due to procedural issues regarding the issuance of notice. The Supreme Court's subsequent ruling clarified the legal position, allowing the current application to proceed.3. Admissibility of the Petition Under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:The Tribunal examined whether there was an operational debt exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, whether the debt was due and payable, and whether there was any pre-existing dispute. The operational creditor provided invoices and a bank statement showing non-payment of Rs. 41,84,270. The corporate debtor admitted to a debt of Rs. 10,50,000 but contested the amount. The Tribunal found no pre-existing dispute or pending suit/arbitration, confirming the debt's existence and default.4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and Declaration of Moratorium:The Tribunal appointed Mr. Rajesh Lohia as the Interim Resolution Professional, directing him to make a public announcement and call for claims. A moratorium was declared prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits, transferring or disposing of assets, and recovery actions against the corporate debtor. Essential services to the corporate debtor were to continue uninterrupted during the moratorium period.Conclusion:The Tribunal admitted the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional, and declaring a moratorium. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all relevant parties were to be communicated with the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
