Tribunal asserts jurisdiction, affirms creditor status, acknowledges debt, appoints IRP, enforces moratorium.

The Tribunal established territorial jurisdiction over the case, confirmed the applicant's status as a financial creditor, recognized the existence of financial debt and default, deemed the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code complete, dismissed objections regarding arbitral awards, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, and declared a moratorium to protect the corporate debtor's assets. The application was admitted, and the IRP was directed to manage the debtor's affairs in accordance with the Code.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal
2. Status of the applicant as a financial creditor
3. Existence of financial debt and default
4. Completeness of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
5. Objections raised by the respondent regarding arbitral awards
6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)
7. Declaration of moratorium and its implications

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal established its territorial jurisdiction over the case since the registered office of the respondent corporate debtor, M/s. Delhi Baroda Road Carrier Private Limited, is located in Delhi. This is in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

2. Status of the Applicant as a Financial Creditor:
The respondent challenged the applicant's status as a financial creditor. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant, M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, had sanctioned and disbursed loans to the respondent, which were recoverable with interest. The loans were disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money, fulfilling the definition of "financial debt" under Section 5(8) of the Code. Therefore, the applicant was rightly classified as a financial creditor under Section 5(7) of the Code.

3. Existence of Financial Debt and Default:
The Tribunal confirmed the existence of financial debt based on the arbitral awards, which included the outstanding principal and interest. The total claimed amount was Rs. 29,89,11,205/-. The respondent failed to repay the awarded amount, establishing a default. The Tribunal emphasized that the debt exceeded the threshold limit of Rs. 1 lakh as stipulated under Section 4 of the Code.

4. Completeness of the Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Tribunal examined the application and found it complete, filed in Form-1 as per Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The application included all necessary documents, records, and evidence of default, fulfilling the requirements of sub-section 5(a) of Section 7 of the Code.

5. Objections Raised by the Respondent Regarding Arbitral Awards:
The respondent argued that the arbitral awards were ex parte and included an incorrect additional interest rate. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had unsuccessfully challenged the awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The awards had attained finality and were enforceable, thus the objections were dismissed.

6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The applicant proposed Mr. Rocky Ravinder Gupta as the IRP, who accepted the appointment and declared that no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. The Tribunal found the proposal compliant with Section 7(3)(b) of the Code and appointed Mr. Gupta as the IRP.

7. Declaration of Moratorium and Its Implications:
The Tribunal declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, prohibiting:
- Institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.
- Transfer, encumbrance, or disposal of any assets of the corporate debtor.
- Actions to foreclose or enforce any security interest.
- Recovery of property in possession of the corporate debtor.

The moratorium did not apply to transactions notified by the Central Government or essential goods and services. The IRP was directed to make a public announcement and manage the corporate debtor's affairs as per Sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Code.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the application under Section 7 of the Code, satisfied that the default had occurred, the application was complete, and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the proposed IRP. The IRP was tasked with managing the corporate debtor's affairs, and a moratorium was imposed to protect the debtor's assets and ensure a fair resolution process.

---