Tribunal initiates CIRP for unpaid solar projects, appoints Resolution Professional.

The Tribunal admitted the application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC in favor of the operational creditor. The Corporate Debtor failed to release complete payment for solar rooftop power projects, leading to the dispute. The Tribunal appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional and imposed a moratorium period. The decision emphasized the absence of a penalty clause, lack of communication of penalties, and completion of work orders despite delays. The Corporate Debtor's claim for compensation was rejected, and compliance directives were issued for record-keeping and updates.

---

---

Issues:
Application for initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of IBC 2016 based on alleged default by Corporate Debtor. Dispute over pending debt amount and penalties imposed. Examination of contractual obligations, delay in project completion, penalty clauses, and communication of disputes.

Analysis:

1. Alleged Default and Debt Amount:
The applicant, an operational creditor, filed an application seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, alleging an outstanding balance of Rs. 13,84,254 due to default in payment related to solar rooftop power projects. The contracts between the parties detailed the work orders, technical specifications, payment terms, and completion periods. Notably, the Corporate Debtor failed to release the complete payment, leading to the dispute.

2. Penalties Imposed and Dispute Over Delay:
The Corporate Debtor claimed a dispute over the pending debt amount, alleging a delay of 117 days by the applicant in executing the work orders. The respondent asserted penalties were imposed due to losses suffered as a result of the delay, supported by communications and calculations of losses. However, the applicant denied these allegations, emphasizing the absence of a penalty clause in the agreement and the lack of dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor during reconciliation.

3. Legal Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal examined the evidence presented by both parties, noting that the Corporate Debtor failed to demonstrate communication of penalties before the demand notice was issued. The absence of a penalty provision in the agreement was highlighted, along with the reconciliation of accounts without dispute over the claim. Referring to the Indian Contract Act, the Tribunal emphasized that the Corporate Debtor could not claim compensation for losses if the work order was completed, as payments were made to the applicant despite the delay.

4. Appointment of Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Tribunal appointed Mr. Amit Talwar as the Insolvency Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor, directing the applicant to deposit a sum for the IRP's expenses. The admission of the application triggered a moratorium period under the IBC, prohibiting certain actions against the Corporate Debtor. Compliance and communication directives were issued to the parties, IRP, and regulatory authorities for record-keeping and updates.

In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the application, finding in favor of the applicant due to the established debt claim and the failure of the Corporate Debtor to prove a preexisting dispute. The decision highlighted the legal provisions, contractual obligations, and communication requirements in resolving the dispute over the alleged default and penalties imposed.

---