TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Debt default leads to Insolvency proceedings under Section 9.</h1> <h3>Anvi Metcorp Pvt. Ltd. Versus Matiz Metals Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Anvi Metcorp Pvt. Ltd. Versus Matiz Metals Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Existence of operational debt and default.2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.3. Arguments and defenses raised by the Corporate Debtor.4. Adjudicating Authority's satisfaction and order.Detailed Analysis:1. Existence of Operational Debt and Default:- The Petitioner, an Operational Creditor, sold and delivered 2,300,000 gm of gold bars to the Corporate Debtor under Tax Invoice No. 21-22/110 dated 01.02.2022, amounting to Rs. 1,13,47,510.00.- Despite the condition of immediate payment, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay. The Operational Creditor sent a reminder on 04.02.2022, and the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt but cited financial difficulties.- Further reminders and a demand notice dated 18.02.2022 were issued, but the Corporate Debtor still failed to pay, admitting the debt but requesting more time due to financial constraints caused by the Russia-Ukraine war.- The Adjudicating Authority found that the debt is due and defaulted, with the default occurring on 02.02.2022 and continuing.2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016:- The Petition was filed under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.- The demand notice was served at the registered and administrative offices of the Corporate Debtor, and proof of delivery was filed.- The Petition was filed within the limitation period, with the default date being 02.02.2022 and the Petition filed on 22.03.2022.- The Adjudicating Authority confirmed that there was no dispute prior to the issuance of the demand notice.3. Arguments and Defenses Raised by the Corporate Debtor:- The Corporate Debtor argued that their failure to pay was due to the economic impact of the Russia-Ukraine war, which caused a sudden increase in gold prices and market volatility.- The Corporate Debtor requested the rejection of the Petition, claiming the need for an opportunity to revive its business.- The Operational Creditor countered that the Corporate Debtor's acknowledgment of the debt and default made these arguments irrelevant.4. Adjudicating Authority's Satisfaction and Order:- The Adjudicating Authority was satisfied with the existence of an operational debt above Rupees One Crore, the debt being due and defaulted, and the procedural compliance by the Petitioner.- The Petition was admitted for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.- A moratorium was declared under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC, 2016, prohibiting suits, asset transfers, and other actions against the Corporate Debtor.- Mr. Amit Pareek was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), with instructions to make a public announcement and comply with the relevant sections of the IBC.- The Operational Creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 3,00,000.00 for initial CIRP expenses.- The IRP was instructed to convene a meeting of the Committee of Creditors and complete the CIRP within the stipulated timeline.- The Registry was directed to communicate the order to all concerned parties.Conclusion:The application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, was admitted, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, with the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional and a moratorium in place.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
