Operational debt claim admitted under Insolvency Code, moratorium declared. Precedent relied on for Corporate Insolvency Process initiation.

The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, finding the operational debt claim to be valid and within the limitation period. The respondent's objections were deemed baseless due to lack of documentary evidence, leading to a declaration of moratorium and appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The judgment relied on precedent to establish the presence of operational debt, resulting in the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Process to resolve the debt issue and ensure continuity of essential services for the corporate debtor.

---

---

Issues involved:
Petition under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for operational debt.

Analysis:
1. Operational Debt Claim: The petitioner, an operational creditor, filed a petition under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming that the respondent owed a total sum of Rs. 10,05,832 along with interest towards the supply of HDPE Woven fabrics. The respondent, a private limited company, denied the debt and raised objections.

2. Submission of Documents: The petitioner submitted various documents to support the claim, including invoices, GST registration certificate, ledger, demand notice, bank statement, and more. The respondent failed to provide documentary proof to counter the claim effectively.

3. Dispute and Admission: The respondent's objections were deemed vague and baseless, lacking documentary evidence. The respondent admitted the debt partially but failed to substantiate claims of offsetting dues against another company. The lack of evidence led to the conclusion that the dispute raised was an afterthought.

4. Judicial Findings: The Adjudicating Authority found the petition to be within the limitation period, with no denial of the operational debt from the corporate debtor's side. The documents presented by the operational creditor established the debt and default on the part of the corporate debtor.

5. Compliance with Legal Requirements: The judgment referred to the case law of Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited to determine the presence of operational debt, due payment, and absence of disputes. It was concluded that the operational debt was due, fulfilling the requirements of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.

6. Admission and Moratorium: The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition, declared a moratorium, and directed the Interim Resolution Professional to make a public announcement for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Process. The moratorium prohibited various actions against the corporate debtor and ensured the continuity of essential services.

7. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: The Authority appointed an Interim Resolution Professional due to the lack of proposal from the operational creditor. The order of moratorium was to remain in effect until the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

8. Communication and Compliance: The order was communicated to the relevant parties, including the applicant, Corporate Debtor, Registrar of Companies, and the appointed Interim Resolution Professional. The Registrar of Companies was informed to refrain from initiating proceedings to strike off the name of the respondent company, considering the ongoing insolvency resolution process.

---