Tribunal Admits Corporate Insolvency Petition | Interim Resolution Professional Appointed

The Tribunal admitted the petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the Corporate Debtor due to default in loan repayment. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and initial CIRP costs were imposed. A moratorium on legal actions against the Corporate Debtor was declared, and essential services were to continue. Public announcement of the CIRP was mandated, and management was entrusted to the IRP. The CIRP was ordered to commence immediately.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Default in repayment of loan by the Corporate Debtor.
2. Validity of the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme and its acceptance.
3. Admission of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Repayment of Loan by the Corporate Debtor:
The Petitioner, Small Industries Development Bank of India, filed for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, Kalra Overseas & Precision Engineering Limited, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Petitioner claimed a default in repayment of a loan amounting to Rs. 5,78,41,476/-, including interest and penal interest. The particulars of the financial debt were detailed, showing principal outstanding, interest, and other charges. The Petitioner provided various documents, such as deeds of hypothecation, loan agreements, and statements of accounts, to substantiate the financial debt due and payable by the Corporate Debtor.

2. Validity of the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme and Its Acceptance:
The Corporate Debtor denied the allegations and contended that the Petitioner had introduced a 'Nondiscriminatory and Non-discretionary One Time Settlement Scheme' for settlement and recovery of non-performing assets. The Respondent accepted the OTS amount of Rs. 1.99 crores and paid 5% of it, requesting more time for the remaining payment. However, the Petitioner rejected the OTS proposal due to the repayment schedule and the unclear NPA status with another lender, ACRE. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner was legally bound to perform its obligations under the OTS scheme and that there existed a binding contract between the parties. The Tribunal noted that the settlement is derived only upon acceptance by both parties, which was not present in this case.

3. Admission of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had defaulted in making payments to the Petitioner. The nature of the debt was identified as "Financial Debt" under Section 5(8) of the Code, and the default was established under Section 3(12) of the Code. The essential qualifications for admission of a petition under Section 7 of the I&B Code, i.e., existence of 'debt' and 'default,' were met. The Tribunal concluded that the Corporate Debtor was liable and had defaulted in repayment. Consequently, the petition was admitted, and the CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor.

Judgment:
The Tribunal appointed Mr. Gajesh Labhchand Jain as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to conduct the Insolvency Resolution Process. The Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 5 Lakhs towards initial CIRP costs. The Tribunal ordered a moratorium on suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor and ensured the continuation of essential goods or services during the moratorium period. The public announcement of the CIRP was mandated, and the management of the Corporate Debtor was vested in the IRP. The Registry was instructed to update the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor and communicate the order to all parties involved. The petition was admitted, and the CIRP was ordered to commence from the date of the order.

---