NCLT Admits Insolvency Application Against Aaradhyam Developers for Debt Default

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench admitted the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by the proprietor of M/s. Lakshmi Steels against M/s. Aaradhyam Developers Private Limited for default in payment of operational debt amounting to Rs. 4,01,970/-. Despite various forms of notice and communication, the Corporate Debtor did not respond, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The Tribunal established jurisdiction based on the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Delhi, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, initiated a moratorium, and outlined necessary steps for compliance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency process initiation.
2. Unpaid dues by the Corporate Debtor leading to default.
3. Service of notice and communication with the Corporate Debtor.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the application.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and initiation of moratorium.

Analysis:

1. The application was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the proprietor of M/s. Lakshmi Steels against M/s. Aaradhyam Developers Private Limited seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency process. The Applicant supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor, who failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 4,01,970/- despite repeated requests and communication.

2. The Applicant detailed the transactions with the Corporate Debtor, including partial payments and a dishonored cheque. The Corporate Debtor did not dispute the quality of goods or the outstanding balance. A demand notice was served, but the Corporate Debtor did not respond, leading to the application under Section 9 for default in payment of operational debt.

3. The Applicant demonstrated the service of notice to the Corporate Debtor through various means, including physical delivery and email communication. Despite the service, the Corporate Debtor did not appear or file a reply, resulting in the proceedings going ex-parte as observed in a relevant legal precedent.

4. The Tribunal established its jurisdiction to entertain the application based on the location of the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Delhi. The application was filed within the limitation period, and all necessary forms and documents were submitted as per the requirements of the Code and Rules.

5. The Tribunal admitted the application, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional and initiating a moratorium as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Applicant was directed to deposit a sum with the IRP to cover expenses, and various communication and compliance steps were outlined for all parties involved, including the IRP, IBBI, and ROC.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench.

---