Tribunal Admits Company Petition, Initiates Insolvency Process, Rules in Favor of Petitioner

The Tribunal admitted the Company Petition, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent, appointed Mr. Deepak Saruparia as the Interim Resolution Professional, and declared a moratorium. The Respondent's arguments on maintainability, debt existence, pre-existing dispute, and supply agreement compliance were dismissed. The Tribunal found in favor of the Petitioner, M/S. CloudWalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and directed compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Company Petition.
2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default.
3. Pre-existing Dispute.
4. Compliance with Supply Agreement.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
6. Declaration of Moratorium.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Company Petition:
The Respondent argued that the Company Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and should be rejected with exemplary costs. They contended that there is no admitted debt or liability, and the petition is filed with mala fide intentions. The Respondent emphasized that they have already paid a significant amount towards the invoices raised by the Petitioner and that the Petitioner’s claims are baseless and frivolous.

2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default:
The Petitioner, M/S. CloudWalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the Respondent, M/S. Flipkart India Private Limited, defaulted on payments amounting to Rs. 26.95 Crores. The Petitioner provided evidence of purchase orders, delivery of LED TVs, and subsequent non-payment. The Petitioner issued a Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Code, which the Respondent did not respond to. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent acknowledged withholding approximately Rs. 42,96,668/- due to alleged deficiencies in service, which was not substantiated.

3. Pre-existing Dispute:
The Respondent contended that there were pre-existing disputes regarding the quality and quantity of goods supplied, which should be adjudicated by a competent civil court. However, the Tribunal found that the Respondent did not raise any disputes before the issuance of the Demand Notice. The Tribunal cited precedents, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that disputes must be pre-existing and not raised after the Demand Notice.

4. Compliance with Supply Agreement:
The Respondent argued that the Petitioner did not comply with several terms of the Supply Agreement, specifically clauses related to delivery and risk. The Tribunal examined the email correspondences and found that the Petitioner imported goods based on the Respondent’s purchase orders and that the Respondent failed to take delivery due to warehouse capacity constraints. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent did not terminate the Agreement or invoke the Arbitration Clause for alleged deficiencies.

5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Petitioner suggested Mr. Deepak Saruparia as the IRP, who provided written consent and declared his eligibility. The Tribunal found him provisionally eligible and appointed him as the IRP to conduct the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

6. Declaration of Moratorium:
The Tribunal declared a moratorium prohibiting:
- Institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.
- Transferring, encumbering, or disposing of the corporate debtor's assets.
- Actions to foreclose or enforce security interests.
- Recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor.
The moratorium will remain effective until the completion of the CIRP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the Company Petition filed by the Petitioner, initiating the CIRP against the Respondent. The Tribunal appointed Mr. Deepak Saruparia as the IRP and declared a moratorium as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal directed the IRP to follow all extant provisions of the Code and submit progress reports periodically. The case was posted for the IRP’s report on 25.11.2019.

---