Admission of Insolvency Petition: Key Findings and Orders

The petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was admitted by the Tribunal. The application was found to be within the limitation period, the power of attorney holder was deemed competent, default by the respondent was established, and the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional was made. A moratorium was declared under Section 14 of the Code, prohibiting certain actions against the corporate debtor. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Objection regarding the application being time-barred.
3. Competency of the power of attorney holder to file the application.
4. Establishment of default by the respondent.
5. Pendency of debt recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
7. Declaration of moratorium.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The petitioner, a financial creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking reliefs under Section 7(5)(a) and Section 13(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Code. The application was supported by various documents, including sanction letters, board resolutions, demand promissory notes, hypothecation deeds, and a statement of accounts.

2. Objection regarding the application being time-barred:
The respondent argued that the application was time-barred as it was based on documents from 2000 to 2014. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant bank had placed on record a simple debit balance confirmation letter dated 07.04.2016, and regular credit entries were observed till May 2018. The corporate debtor also acknowledged the debt in letters dated 17.11.2018 and in its reply. Thus, the application filed on 29.04.2019 was within the limitation period.

3. Competency of the power of attorney holder to file the application:
The respondent contended that the power of attorney holder was not competent to file the application. The Tribunal found that the power of attorney was duly executed and authorized by the bank's Board of Directors, and the signatures were verified. Thus, the objection was not maintainable.

4. Establishment of default by the respondent:
The respondent claimed that the petitioner failed to establish default. The Tribunal noted that the corporate debtor had availed various credit facilities and acknowledged the debt from time to time. The debt recovery proceedings initiated by the financial creditor further substantiated the default. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence to establish the default by the corporate debtor.

5. Pendency of debt recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT):
The respondent argued that the pendency of debt recovery proceedings before the DRT made the application under the IBC redundant. The Tribunal clarified that there is no bar on filing an IBC application during the pendency of DRT proceedings. The financial creditor's claim was found to be valid, and the default was established.

6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Tribunal appointed Mr. Chandra Prakash Jain as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The application was found to be complete, and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the proposed IRP.

7. Declaration of moratorium:
The Tribunal declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, transferring or disposing of assets, and recovery actions. The supply of essential goods and services to the corporate debtor was directed to continue during the moratorium period.

Conclusion:
The petition was admitted, and the moratorium was declared. The Tribunal directed the communication of the order to the applicant, respondent, and the IRP. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---