Tribunal Admits Petition Under Section 9 of IBC: Operational Debt, Demand Notice, and Timely Filing

The Tribunal found the demand notice properly served, operational debt undisputed, application timely filed, and petition admitted under Section 9 of the IBC due to default in payment exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. Mr. Tarsem Chand Garg was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the case proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of demand notice service
2. Dispute over operational debt
3. Timeliness of the application
4. Admission of the petition under Section 9 of the IBC
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional

Validity of Demand Notice Service:
The Tribunal examined whether the demand notice in Form 3 dated 25.04.2019 was properly served. The notice was delivered to the registered address of the corporate debtor on 02.05.2019, as evidenced by the original postal receipt and tracking report. The report indicated successful delivery to the corporate debtor's registered address, confirming proper service of the demand notice.

Dispute over Operational Debt:
The Tribunal considered whether the operational debt was disputed by the corporate debtor. Despite being granted time to file a reply and appear in the proceedings, the corporate debtor failed to respond. The operational creditor affirmed receiving no reply to the demand notice and stated the absence of any dispute regarding the unpaid operational debt, indicating the lack of pending disputes in any legal forum.

Timeliness of the Application:
Another issue addressed was whether the application was filed within the statutory limitation period. The demand notice was served on 02.05.2019, setting the due date for payment at 12.05.2019. As the corporate debtor neither replied nor made payment by the due date, the limitation period started from 12.05.2019. Since the application was filed on 17.07.2019, it was deemed timely by the Adjudicating Authority.

Admission of the Petition under Section 9 of the IBC:
After reviewing the application and supporting documents, the Tribunal found the petition complete, establishing the default in payment of operational debt exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. Consequently, the petition was admitted under Section 9 of the IBC, leading to the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Code.

Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional:
The Tribunal appointed Mr. Tarsem Chand Garg as the Interim Resolution Professional, selected from the panel approved for the NCLT Chandigarh Bench. Mr. Garg's credentials were verified, and no adverse findings were reported. The appointed IRP was directed to fulfill the obligations mandated under various sections of the IBC, ensuring the constitution of the Committee of Creditors and submitting progress reports regularly.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including the validity of the demand notice service, dispute over operational debt, timeliness of the application, admission of the petition under the IBC, and the appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional.

---