Petitions Denied for CIRP Initiation due to Misuse of Insolvency Process

The tribunal dismissed the petitions seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor, M/s. Cosmos Technocast Private Limited, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The claims were barred by limitation, and the tribunal found that the financial creditors were misusing the insolvency process for debt recovery purposes. The tribunal highlighted the lack of a formal agreement on the interest rate and imposed an exemplary cost in each matter, payable to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund for COVID-19 relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Alleged default in repayment of unsecured loans with interest.
3. Dispute regarding the rate of interest on the unsecured loans.
4. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Alleged misuse of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for debt recovery.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
The petitioners, as financial creditors, filed separate petitions under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking the initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor, M/s. Cosmos Technocast Private Limited. The petitions were combined for adjudication due to the similarity in facts and issues.

2. Alleged Default in Repayment of Unsecured Loans with Interest
The financial creditors claimed that they had provided unsecured loans to the corporate debtor, which were not repaid along with the agreed interest. The corporate debtor issued cheques for partial repayment, which were either not encashed by the creditors or were disputed due to disagreements over the interest rate.

3. Dispute Regarding the Rate of Interest on the Unsecured Loans
The financial creditors claimed an interest rate of 2% per month (24% per annum) on the unsecured loans. The corporate debtor contended that the agreed interest rate was 12% per annum and provided evidence of interest payments at this rate. The tribunal noted the absence of a formal written agreement specifying the interest rate.

4. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963
The tribunal highlighted that the petitions were barred by limitation, as they were filed beyond the three-year period prescribed for initiating insolvency proceedings. The financial creditors issued notices for repayment in 2017, while the loans were disbursed between 2006 and 2010. The tribunal cited precedents from the Supreme Court and NCLAT to support the application of the Limitation Act to insolvency proceedings.

5. Alleged Misuse of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for Debt Recovery
The tribunal observed that the financial creditors appeared to be using the insolvency process as a debt recovery mechanism rather than for the resolution of the corporate debtor's insolvency. The tribunal emphasized that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is intended for the revival and resolution of debt-ridden companies, not for the recovery of dues. The tribunal noted that the petitions seemed to stem from a family dispute and were an attempt to harass the corporate debtor.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the petitions, stating that the claims were barred by limitation and that the financial creditors were using the insolvency process for debt recovery. The tribunal also noted the corporate debtor's bona fide efforts to repay the loans and the absence of a formal agreement on the interest rate. The tribunal imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 30,000 in each matter, payable to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund for COVID-19 relief.

---