Successful initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9

The Tribunal found that the demand notice was properly served, the operational debt was not disputed, the application was filed within the limitation period, the application was complete, an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and the conditions under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were satisfied. The petition for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the corporate debtor was admitted, and additional directions including declaring a moratorium and specific instructions for the IRP were issued.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of demand notice.
2. Dispute over operational debt.
3. Filing within the limitation period.
4. Completeness of the application.
5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
6. Satisfaction of conditions under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Service of Demand Notice:
The first issue for consideration is whether the demand notice in Form 3 dated 15.09.2020 was properly served. The demand notice was sent through e-mail on 17.09.2020 to the registered e-mail address of the corporate debtor as available on the master data of the MCA. The notice was also couriered to the registered address but returned with the remark 'Consignee Shifted'. Additionally, the notice was advertised in two local daily newspapers. Thus, the Tribunal found that the demand notice was properly served.

2. Dispute Over Operational Debt:
The next issue is whether the operational debt was disputed by the corporate debtor. The petitioner/operational creditor filed an affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) of the Code, stating that no notice was given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt at any point in time. The Tribunal inferred that there was no preexisting dispute between the parties regarding the operational debt.

3. Filing Within the Limitation Period:
The Tribunal examined whether the application was filed within the limitation period. The application was filed on 18.02.2021 (refiled on 16.08.2021), while the date of default was 23.03.2020. The Tribunal concluded that the application was filed within the limitation period.

4. Completeness of the Application:
The Tribunal reviewed the contents of the application filed in Form 5 and found it to be complete. The operational creditor provided details of the debt due, along with supporting documents such as the ledger account statement, statement of accounts, invoices, and credit notes. The unpaid operational debt amounted to Rs. 2,20,28,662/-, which is above the threshold limit. The Tribunal determined that the petitioner established the debt and default.

5. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
In Part-III of Form No. 5, no Interim Resolution Professional was proposed by the petitioner. Consequently, the Tribunal appointed Mr. Satya Dev Kaushik as the Interim Resolution Professional in the matter. The Tribunal directed Mr. Kaushik to take control and custody of the corporate debtor's assets, prepare an inventory of assets, and comply with all relevant provisions of the Code.

6. Satisfaction of Conditions Under Section 9 of the IBC:
The Tribunal found that the conditions under Section 9 of the Code were satisfied. The corporate debtor failed to make payment of the operational debt even after receiving the demand notice. The liability of the corporate debtor was undisputed, and there was no rebuttal to the claim filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal admitted the petition for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor, Hooq Digital (India) Private Limited.

Additional Directions:
- A moratorium was declared as per Section 14 of the Code, prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits, transferring or disposing of assets, and recovering property occupied by the corporate debtor.
- The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor shall not be terminated during the moratorium period.
- The IRP was directed to make a public announcement of the CIRP initiation, constitute a Committee of Creditors, and send regular progress reports to the Tribunal.
- The petitioner was instructed to deposit Rs. 60,000 with the IRP to meet immediate CIRP expenses.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed and admitted, and the Tribunal directed communication of the order to both parties and the Interim Resolution Professional.

---