Tribunal allows posthumous application for CIRP, rejects Demand Notice objections

The Tribunal ruled that the application filed by legal representatives after the death of the applicant was maintainable for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The objections raised by the respondent regarding the Demand Notice were found to be untenable based on evidence presented. The Tribunal concluded that there was no pre-existing dispute between the parties as the issue had been resolved. It approved the appointment of an Insolvency Resolution Professional and directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount to cover expenses, invoking the moratorium period as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application filed by legal representatives after the death of the applicant.
2. Validity of the Demand Notice and objections raised by the respondent.
3. Existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
4. Appointment of Insolvency Resolution Professional and deposit requirement.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the application filed by legal representatives after the death of the applicant:

The application was filed by legal representatives seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The respondent objected to the maintainability of the application, arguing that since the sole proprietor had passed away, the application was not valid. However, the Tribunal ruled that the application filed by legal heirs after the death of the applicant was maintainable. The Tribunal referred to a relevant judgment and highlighted that an application by legal heirs was allowed by the Tribunal previously, which was not challenged, thus upholding the maintainability of the current application.

Issue 2: Validity of the Demand Notice and objections raised by the respondent:

The respondent raised objections regarding the Demand Notice, alleging defects such as the absence of annexed invoices and a specific date of default. However, the applicant defended these objections by stating that the respondent had knowledge of the invoices as evidenced by receipt acknowledgment. The Tribunal found the objections regarding the Demand Notice to be untenable based on the evidence presented.

Issue 3: Existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties:

The respondent claimed a pre-existing dispute based on alleged defects in goods supplied by the applicant and lack of rectification. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of transactions and payments, concluding that the dispute was resolved before subsequent orders were placed and goods received. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a genuine dispute and rejected the contention of a pre-existing dispute, noting that the issue raised by the respondent was resolved between the parties.

Issue 4: Appointment of Insolvency Resolution Professional and deposit requirement:

The Tribunal approved the appointment of an Insolvency Resolution Professional proposed by the applicant. It directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount with the Interim Resolution Professional to cover expenses. Additionally, the Tribunal invoked the moratorium period as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and outlined the necessary communication and compliance steps to be taken by the parties involved.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision and reasoning.

---