Applicant Granted CIRP Against Corporate Debtor, IRP Appointed

The Tribunal found in favor of the Applicant, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal determined that the defenses raised were not genuine, and the Applicant had proven the existence of an operational debt. Consequently, the Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to take over the Corporate Debtor's affairs as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Application was admitted, and the Operational Creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- to the IRP's account within three days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Petition
2. Existence of Operational Debt
3. Pre-existing Dispute
4. Limitation
5. Service of Demand Notice
6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the Petition was filed in an individual capacity without documentary evidence of the signatory's relationship with the Applicant. However, the Tribunal noted that the Memo of Parties was amended to reflect Mr. Vijay Kumar Todi as the Proprietor of M/s. V. One, which was accepted by the Tribunal.

2. Existence of Operational Debt:
The Applicant claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,67,297/- for job-work performed. The Corporate Debtor argued that the supplies were rejected, and debit notes were issued. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor did not dispute the invoices or their contents and that the debit notes lacked clear admittance by the Applicant. The Tribunal noted that the Form 26AS filed by the Applicant evidenced the deduction of TDS by the Corporate Debtor, supporting the Applicant’s claim.

3. Pre-existing Dispute:
The Corporate Debtor asserted a pre-existing dispute, citing rejected goods and debit notes. The Tribunal observed that the email communications and the registration certificate indicated that the disputes pertained to a different entity, "V. Together," not "M/s. V. One." The Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor's defenses were inconsistent and lacked credibility, categorizing them as "moonshine defenses."

4. Limitation:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the Application was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor maintained a running account with the Applicant, and the relevant invoices were within the limitation period. Therefore, the Application was not barred by limitation.

5. Service of Demand Notice:
The Corporate Debtor contended that it did not receive the demand notice. The Tribunal found that the Applicant provided proof of delivery from the Department of Posts, and the presumption of delivery under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applied. The Tribunal concluded that the service of the demand notice was adequately addressed.

6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Tribunal appointed Ms. Anuradha Gupta as the IRP and directed her to take necessary steps under sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal also invoked the Moratorium under section 14 of the Code.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, finding that the defenses raised were not genuine and that the Applicant had established the existence of an operational debt. The Tribunal directed the IRP to take over the affairs of the Corporate Debtor and perform duties as required under the Code. The Application was admitted, and the Tribunal ordered the Operational Creditor to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- to the IRP's account within three days.

---