Tribunal admits CIRP application against Corporate Debtor for non-compliance. Operational Creditor's claim upheld.

The Tribunal admitted the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of a valid dispute. The Operational Creditor's claim of unpaid operational debt was upheld, leading to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional and the declaration of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of a valid operational debt.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
3. Existence of a dispute regarding the debt.
4. Admission of the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of a Valid Operational Debt:
The Operational Creditor, Om Logistics Limited, filed an application against the Corporate Debtor, Servel India Private Limited, under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, seeking initiation of the CIRP. The Operational Creditor claimed that it had provided transportation services to the Corporate Debtor under a contract dated 01st July 2017, which was renewed/amended from time to time. It raised various bills for freight charges which remained unpaid, amounting to Rs. 7,94,035/-. Despite repeated requests and a demand notice dated 19.08.2019, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the outstanding amount.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 8 and Section 9 of the IBC, 2016:
The Operational Creditor submitted that it had complied with all procedural requirements by sending a demand notice to the Corporate Debtor, which was duly delivered on 21.09.2019. The Corporate Debtor did not respond within the stipulated ten days, as required under Section 8(2) of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor had provided postal documents as proof of delivery of the demand notice.

3. Existence of a Dispute Regarding the Debt:
The Corporate Debtor denied the claims, asserting that no agreement existed between the parties and that the invoices were not genuine. It contended that there were serious disputed facts that required a trial. However, the Tribunal observed that the Corporate Debtor failed to raise any dispute or provide evidence of payment within ten days of receiving the demand notice, as mandated by Section 8(2) of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal referenced the case of Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, emphasizing that legislative intent must be given effect, and non-compliance with Section 8(2) precluded the Corporate Debtor from raising disputes subsequently.

4. Admission of the Application for CIRP:
The Tribunal found that the application was complete, and the unpaid operational debt exceeded the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Lakh. Since the Corporate Debtor did not raise any disputes or provide payment evidence within the required timeframe, the Tribunal admitted the application under Section 9(5)(i)(a) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, a moratorium was declared under Section 14, staying all suits, proceedings, and actions against the Corporate Debtor, and prohibiting the transfer or disposal of its assets.

Additional Orders:
The Tribunal appointed Mr. Reetesh Kumar Agarwal as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and directed the Operational Creditor to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs to cover immediate IRP expenses, which would be reimbursed as CIR costs. Copies of the order were to be sent to both parties and the IRP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the application for initiating the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of a valid dispute, thereby enforcing the provisions of the IBC, 2016.

---