2022 (9) TMI 1345 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal grants petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9

Dextra India Private Limited Versus RCC Infraventures Limited

Dextra India Private Limited Versus RCC Infraventures Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Proper service of demand notice.3. Dispute regarding operational debt.4. Timeliness of the application filing.5. Satisfaction of conditions under Section 9(5)(i) of the Code.6. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.7. Implementation of moratorium.8. Compliance with regulations by the Interim Resolution Professional.9. Cooperation required from the Corporate Debtor and its management.10. Constitution of Committee of Creditors.Issue 1: Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process:The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, RCC Infraventures Limited. The petition detailed the outstanding debt, issuance of purchase orders, supply of goods, and default in payment, satisfying the requirements for initiating the CIRP.Issue 2: Proper Service of Demand Notice:The petition included a demand notice in Form 3 dated 13.11.2019, which was served to the Corporate Debtor. Despite the Corporate Debtor being set ex parte, the notice was deemed to have been properly served, as evidenced by the records.Issue 3: Dispute Regarding Operational Debt:The Corporate Debtor failed to appear or respond, leading to being set ex parte. The Operational Creditor asserted that the Corporate Debtor's reply to the demand notice raised baseless disputes, indicating no pre-existing dispute regarding the unpaid operational debt.Issue 4: Timeliness of Application Filing:The application was filed on 24.02.2020, within the limitation period from the date of default, which was 18.05.2019. The Adjudicating Authority found the application to be timely filed.Issue 5: Satisfaction of Conditions under Section 9(5)(i) of the Code:The petition demonstrated the undisputed default in payment by the Corporate Debtor, exceeding the threshold limit, satisfying the conditions under Section 9(5)(i) of the Code for admitting the petition and initiating the CIR Process.Issue 6: Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional:Mr. Hemantprakash Shyamsunder Jain was proposed as the Interim Resolution Professional and appointed by the Tribunal. The directions included the suspension of the Board of Directors' powers, management vesting with the IRP, and compliance with the Code's provisions and ethical standards.Issue 7: Implementation of Moratorium:The Tribunal directed the moratorium to take effect, prohibiting certain actions against the Corporate Debtor's assets and ensuring the continuity of essential goods or services during the moratorium period.Issue 8: Compliance with Regulations by the IRP:The IRP was directed to comply with regulations, take control of assets, retrieve necessary information, and submit regular progress reports to the Tribunal, ensuring adherence to the Code's objectives and timelines.Issue 9: Cooperation Required from the Corporate Debtor:The ex-management and promoters of the Corporate Debtor were directed to cooperate with the IRP, extend support in managing affairs, and provide access to books, records, and assets, emphasizing compliance with regulatory provisions.Issue 10: Constitution of Committee of Creditors:The IRP was tasked with constituting a Committee of Creditors, filing a report certifying the Committee's constitution, and convening the first meeting within the stipulated timeframe, ensuring transparency and creditor participation in the resolution process.This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, detailing the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal in the matter.