Tribunal admits CIRP, imposes moratorium, appoints IRP. Fraud claim rejected, Financial Creditor to pay IRP fees.

The tribunal admitted the application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, imposed a moratorium, and appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). The Corporate Debtor's application alleging fraud by the Financial Creditor was rejected, and the tribunal directed the Financial Creditor to deposit the fee for the IRP's immediate expenses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.
2. Validity and completeness of the application filed under Section 7.
3. Alleged concealment of facts and disputes over the amount of default.
4. Validity of loan restructuring and its subsequent revocation.
5. Determination of Financial Creditor status and Financial Debt under IBC, 2016.
6. Application of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016.
7. Rejection of the Corporate Debtor's application under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016:
The application was filed by Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. as a Financial Creditor to initiate CIRP against Noida Medicare Centre Limited (Corporate Debtor) due to defaults in repayment of credit facilities initially provided by Kotak Mahindra Bank, which were later assigned to Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. The tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had committed defaults in repayment, leading to the initiation of CIRP.

2. Validity and completeness of the application filed under Section 7:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the application under Section 7 was incomplete and lacked details of the default amount and date. However, the tribunal noted that the application was complete, and the default amount exceeded the threshold of Rs. 1,00,000, thereby meeting the requirements for initiating CIRP.

3. Alleged concealment of facts and disputes over the amount of default:
The Corporate Debtor claimed that the Financial Creditor concealed the contents of the restructuring letter dated 29.09.2017. The tribunal found that disputes over the default amount are not grounds for rejecting an application under Section 7 if the default amount exceeds the threshold limit. The tribunal also noted that the restructuring and subsequent defaults were adequately documented.

4. Validity of loan restructuring and its subsequent revocation:
The tribunal examined the restructuring agreement dated 29.09.2017 and its revocation on 12.02.2019 due to continued defaults by the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found that the restructuring was done at the request of the Corporate Debtor and that the revocation was justified due to non-compliance with the restructuring terms.

5. Determination of Financial Creditor status and Financial Debt under IBC, 2016:
The tribunal determined that Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. qualified as a Financial Creditor under Section 5(7) of the IBC, 2016, as the debt was legally assigned from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The outstanding amount claimed by the Financial Creditor was considered a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC, 2016.

6. Application of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016:
Upon admitting the application, the tribunal imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016, staying all suits, proceedings, and actions against the Corporate Debtor. The moratorium also prohibited the transfer, encumbrance, or disposal of the Corporate Debtor's assets and ensured the supply of essential goods and services during the moratorium period.

7. Rejection of the Corporate Debtor's application under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016:
The Corporate Debtor's application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, alleging fraud by the Financial Creditor, was rejected by the tribunal. The tribunal found no merit in the allegations and concluded that the proceedings initiated under Section 7 were maintainable.

Conclusion:
The tribunal admitted the application for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, imposed a moratorium, and appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). The Corporate Debtor's application under Section 60(5) was rejected, and the tribunal directed the Financial Creditor to deposit the fee for the IRP's immediate expenses. The order was communicated to the IRP and both parties.

---