Tribunal admits CIRP application, appoints IRP, imposes moratorium. Corporate debtor's objections dismissed. Operational debt default found.

The tribunal admitted the application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and imposed a moratorium. The objections raised by the corporate debtor regarding the service of the demand notice, pre-existing disputes, and limitation were dismissed. The tribunal found the existence and default of the operational debt, leading to the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Service of Demand Notice and Compliance with Rules.
3. Alleged Pre-Existing Dispute and Limitation Period.
4. Admission of Debt and Default.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and Moratorium.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The application was filed by the authorized representative of Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. to initiate CIRP against Apex Electro Devices Pvt. Ltd. The applicant, a manufacturer of electrical equipment, supplied goods to the corporate debtor, who failed to make payments against 366 invoices from March 2015 to December 2016. Despite assurances and legal notices, no payment was received, leading to the filing of the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

2. Service of Demand Notice and Compliance with Rules:
The corporate debtor contested the service of the demand notice, claiming it was not served as per the mandatory provisions. The applicant countered that the notice was refused at the registered office, which constitutes good service under the law. The tribunal supported this view, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's stance that refusal to accept a notice is considered valid service.

3. Alleged Pre-Existing Dispute and Limitation Period:
The corporate debtor raised objections regarding pre-existing disputes over short supply, damaged goods, and interest claims. The tribunal noted that disputes raised were related to transactions from 2012-2013, whereas the invoices in question were from 2015-2016. The tribunal relied on several precedents, including "Manjeet Kaur Sran Vs. Tricolite Electrical Industries Limited" and "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank," to conclude that the application was within the limitation period and the disputes did not negate the existence of the debt.

4. Admission of Debt and Default:
The tribunal observed that the corporate debtor admitted a liability of Rs. 1,42,87,068.32 in their reply, which exceeds the threshold of Rs. 1 Lakh for initiating CIRP. The tribunal cited the "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank" judgment, emphasizing that the Code is triggered by a default of Rs. 1 Lakh or more, and once a default is established, the application must be admitted unless incomplete.

5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and Moratorium:
The tribunal appointed Mr. Akhil Ahuja as the IRP and imposed a moratorium as per Section 14 of the Code, prohibiting certain actions against the corporate debtor. The operational creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 2 lacs with the IRP for expenses. The tribunal ensured compliance with procedural requirements, including communication of the order to relevant parties and authorities.

Conclusion:
The tribunal admitted the application for initiating CIRP against the corporate debtor, appointed an IRP, and imposed a moratorium. The objections raised by the corporate debtor regarding the service of the demand notice, pre-existing disputes, and limitation were dismissed, establishing the existence and default of the operational debt.

---