Operational Creditor's Claim Accepted: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Initiated

The Adjudicating Authority, the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, accepted the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by an Operational Creditor against a Corporate Debtor for non-payment of invoices. The Authority found the Applicant's claim valid, as the Respondent failed to provide evidence of payment or dispute the invoices. The application was within the time limitation, and an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed to manage the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Various consequences of initiating the CIRP were enforced, including a moratorium and strict adherence to the provisions of the Code.

---

---

Issues:
- Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
- Dispute regarding non-payment of invoices by the Respondent.
- Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.
- Time limitation for filing the application.
- Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) under Section 16 of the Code.
- Consequences of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Issue 1: Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:
The Applicant, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent, a Corporate Debtor. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent failed to make payments for supplied goods, resulting in an outstanding amount of &8377; 69,39,639.20. The Applicant provided evidence of invoices and a demand notice, asserting the Respondent's non-payment and lack of dispute regarding the debt.

Issue 2: Dispute over non-payment of invoices:
The Respondent contended that it had been regularly making payments and that the application was an attempt by the Applicant to avoid liability for inferior materials supplied. However, the Respondent failed to provide any supporting documents to prove payment or dispute the invoices raised. The Adjudicating Authority found the Respondent's contentions to be mere denials without substantial evidence.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
Given that the registered office of the Respondent Corporate Debtor was in Jaipur, the Adjudicating Authority, the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, had jurisdiction to entertain and try the application under Section 9 of the Code.

Issue 4: Time limitation for filing the application:
The application was filed within the period of limitation as the first default occurred on 14.09.2016, and the application was filed on 26.08.2019, well within the time frame, making the debt not time-barred.

Issue 5: Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
As per Section 16 of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority can appoint an IRP. In this case, the Authority selected Ms. Garima Diggiwal from the panel of resolution professionals approved for NCLT, Jaipur Bench. The proposed IRP's credentials were verified, and no adverse records were found, leading to the appointment of Ms. Garima Diggiwal as the IRP to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP.

Issue 6: Consequences of initiating CIRP:
Upon admission of the application, various consequences were invoked, including the IRP taking over the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, invoking a moratorium as per Section 14 of the Code, and the Applicant being directed to deposit a sum for the IRP's expenses. The IRP was tasked with managing the CIRP strictly as per the specified timelines and provisions of the Code.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the subsequent decisions made by the Adjudicating Authority in the matter.

---