Tribunal admits CIRP petition, declares moratorium, appoints IRP. Corporate Debtor's objections dismissed.

The tribunal admitted the petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, declared a moratorium, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The objections raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding excessive pricing and procedural irregularities were dismissed due to non-compliance with the dispute notice period and lack of relevant evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
2. Dispute over the amount due and payable under the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 8 and 9 of IBC.
4. Validity of the demand notice and the response time by the Corporate Debtor.
5. Examination of the WhatsApp communications and other evidence provided by the Corporate Debtor.
6. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and related procedural directions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of IBC, 2016:
The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor, Totem Media Solutions Private Limited, to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, V2 Retail Limited, due to unpaid operational debt. The Operational Creditor is engaged in selling advertising print space, and the Corporate Debtor had placed orders for such services from July 2018 to May 2019.

2. Dispute over the Amount Due and Payable:
The Operational Creditor raised 24 invoices amounting to Rs. 82,10,374/- plus interest of Rs. 4,51,022/-, totaling Rs. 86,61,396/-. Despite several reminders, the dues remained unpaid. The Corporate Debtor contended that the invoices reflected excessive and arbitrary rates and were not acknowledged or signed by any representative of the Corporate Debtor.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Sections 8 and 9 of IBC:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the application suffered from material irregularities, including non-compliance with Section 9(3)(c) and a false affidavit under Section 9(3)(b). The Operational Creditor maintained that compliance with Section 9(3)(c) is directory and not mandatory.

4. Validity of the Demand Notice and Response Time:
The demand notice was served on 29.07.2019, and the Corporate Debtor replied on 16.08.2019, beyond the prescribed 10-day period under Section 8(2) of IBC. The Corporate Debtor claimed to have received the notice on 10.08.2019 but provided no supporting documents. The tribunal found that the notice was duly delivered on 29.07.2019, and the reply was not within the stipulated time.

5. Examination of WhatsApp Communications and Other Evidence:
The Corporate Debtor relied on WhatsApp communications to argue against the high pricing. However, the tribunal found these communications irrelevant as they were between the Corporate Debtor and a third party, not the Operational Creditor. The tribunal also noted that the Corporate Debtor did not raise any dispute within the required timeframe.

6. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and Related Procedural Directions:
The tribunal admitted the application under Section 9(5)(i) of IBC, finding that the Operational Creditor had established non-payment of the operational debt and compliance with procedural requirements. A moratorium was declared, and Mr. Amit Gupta was appointed as the IRP. The Operational Creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- to meet the immediate expenses of the IRP.

Conclusion:
The tribunal admitted the petition for CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, declared a moratorium, and appointed an IRP, directing compliance with relevant sections of IBC. The Corporate Debtor's objections regarding the excessive pricing and procedural irregularities were dismissed due to non-compliance with the dispute notice period and lack of relevant evidence.

---