Tribunal admits CIRP application, imposes moratorium, appoints IRP. Compliance and fund deposit ordered.

The Tribunal admitted the application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional. The Applicant was directed to deposit funds for the IRP's expenses, and the order was communicated for compliance. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Corporate Debtor's failure to deny liability, the validity of the service agreement, admissibility of the claim, jurisdiction, compliance with procedural requirements, and the potential for early resolution despite a pending Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement before the Delhi High Court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
2. Validity and enforceability of the service agreement
3. Admissibility of the claim by the Operational Creditor
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
5. Impact of Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
6. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):
The application was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by My Kind Vacations Private Limited, seeking initiation of CIRP against IYOGI Technical Services Private Limited for defaulting on payment of Rs. 23,16,838/- plus interest. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had neither denied its liability nor rebutted the claim of the Operational Creditor, thus satisfying the conditions for initiating CIRP.

2. Validity and Enforceability of the Service Agreement:
The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor entered into a service agreement with the Applicant on 23.04.2012 for various travel-related services. Despite the agreement being valid for one year, the Corporate Debtor continued to use the Applicant's services under the same terms. The Tribunal acknowledged the continuity of the agreement and the services provided by the Applicant, validating the enforceability of the agreement.

3. Admissibility of the Claim by the Operational Creditor:
The Applicant raised invoices from March 2015 to December 2015, which were partially paid by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged the outstanding amount via email and promised to clear the dues by 31.01.2016. The Applicant issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code on 01.06.2017, which the Corporate Debtor did not respond to within the stipulated time. The Tribunal confirmed the admissibility of the claim based on the acknowledgment and the lack of dispute.

4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated in Delhi, giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain and try the application. The Tribunal confirmed that the application was filed within the period of limitation, as the date of default was 01.04.2016 and the application was filed on 01.09.2017.

5. Impact of Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court:
The Corporate Debtor informed the Tribunal about the Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which included the Applicant's claim. The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor had admitted its liability before the High Court and agreed to pay 100% of the principal amount to the unsecured creditors, including the Applicant. The Tribunal considered the scheme but decided that initiating CIRP would not prejudice any party and could lead to an early resolution.

6. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the IBC, 2016:
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had complied with all procedural requirements under Section 9(3)(b) of the Code. The application was complete, there was no payment of the unpaid operational debt, the demand notice was duly delivered, and there was no record of dispute or disciplinary proceedings against the proposed resolution professional. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated CIRP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the application for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, and appointed Mr. Sumit Sharma as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs for the IRP's immediate expenses, and the order was communicated to all relevant parties and authorities for compliance and record updates.

---