2022 (3) TMI 1220 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal admits application under Insolvency Code against Corporate Debtor for rent default

The Tribunal admitted the application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There does not seem to any defence available to the Corporate Debtor for its default in payment of operational debt. This petition, therefore, deserves to be admitted. The application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, is hereby admitted - Moratorium declared. Issues:Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.Analysis:The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor based on default in payment of rent and amenities as per the lease and amenities agreement. The Operational Creditor provided the demised property on lease to the Corporate Debtor, who defaulted in payment from January 2018 onwards. Despite demand notices and replies, the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the outstanding dues, leading to the petition being filed. The Corporate Debtor argued that the default was unintentional and linked to pending dues from the Government of India, but the Operational Creditor contended that the default was deliberate. The Operational Creditor highlighted that the Corporate Debtor had admitted the liability and failed to raise any dispute, indicating the operational debt nature of the claim.Jurisdiction and Maintainability:The Corporate Debtor contended that the Operational Creditor was not an 'Operational Creditor' as defined under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that the NCLT lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims related to unpaid rent and amenities. The Corporate Debtor argued that the matter should have been pursued in a Civil Court for breach of contract. However, the Operational Creditor emphasized that the unpaid rent and amenities constituted operational debt as per the Code, and the Corporate Debtor's lack of plausible defense further supported the admission of the petition by the Tribunal.Adjudication and Orders:After considering the submissions and lack of defense from the Corporate Debtor, the Tribunal admitted the application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal declared a moratorium, initiated public announcements, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to oversee the resolution process. The moratorium prohibited certain actions against the Corporate Debtor, and essential services were to be maintained during this period. The Tribunal set deadlines for the IRP to convene meetings, identify resolution applicants, and manage preliminary expenses. The matter was listed for a progress report, and the order was communicated to all relevant parties for compliance.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal proceedings, arguments presented by the parties, jurisdictional aspects, and the Tribunal's orders regarding the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process in the case.