NCLAT dismisses operational creditor's Section 9 appeal for defaults during Section 10A moratorium period

NCLAT dismissed operational creditor's appeal against rejection of Section 9 application. The tribunal held that default dates of 03.05.2020, 15.08.2020, and 01.01.2021 fell within the Section 10A prohibited period, making the application non-maintainable per Supreme Court precedent in Ramesh Kymal case. The adjudicating authority correctly refused to initiate CIRP proceedings based on defaults occurring during the moratorium period. The appellant's contention that default dates should have been modified was rejected as no amendment application was filed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor is maintainable in light of the statutory provision contained in Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
• Whether the dates of default mentioned by the Operational Creditor fall within the prohibited period prescribed under Section 10A, thereby rendering the application non-maintainable.
• Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in dismissing the Section 9 application based on the dates of default mentioned in the demand notice and application.
• Whether the Adjudicating Authority should have independently verified and possibly amended the dates of default as claimed by the Appellant.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Maintainability of the Section 9 Application under Section 10A of IBC

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

Section 10A of the IBC provides a suspension on the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) for defaults arising on or after March 25, 2020, for a period of six months, extendable up to one year. The section explicitly prohibits any application for defaults occurring during this period. The Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Kymal Vs Siemens Gamesha Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. established that defaults during this period cannot be grounds for initiating CIRP.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Tribunal examined the dates of default mentioned in the Section 9 application and the demand notice, noting that they fell within the Section 10A period. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Kymal to affirm that defaults during the Section 10A period cannot be used to initiate CIRP.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The dates of default were listed as May 3, 2020, August 15, 2020, and January 1, 2021. These dates were consistently mentioned in both the demand notice and the Section 9 application.

Application of Law to Facts:

Given the dates of default fell within the prohibited period under Section 10A, the Tribunal concluded that the Section 9 application was non-maintainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority should have independently verified the dates of default. However, the Tribunal found this argument unpersuasive, stating that any need for modification should have been raised by the Appellant through an amendment application.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, confirming the non-maintainability of the Section 9 application due to the dates of default falling within the Section 10A period.

2. Responsibility for Amending Dates of Default

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The Tribunal emphasized that the responsibility to amend or correct dates of default lies with the party filing the application. The Adjudicating Authority is not obligated to modify dates without a formal request from the applicant.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's contention that the Adjudicating Authority should have amended the dates independently. It was deemed an unreasonable expectation and beyond the Authority's jurisdiction without a formal amendment application.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The Appellant did not file any amendment application to correct the dates of default.

Application of Law to Facts:

Without a formal request to amend the dates, the Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on the dates provided in the application and demand notice.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Appellant's argument for independent amendment by the Adjudicating Authority was dismissed as lacking merit and procedural basis.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority acted correctly in not amending the dates of default sua sponte.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

The Tribunal noted, "No liability can be fastened on the Corporate Debtor for default committed during Section 10A period."

Core Principles Established:

• Defaults occurring within the Section 10A period are immune from CIRP initiation under Section 9 of the IBC.
• The responsibility to correct or amend application details lies with the applicant, not the Adjudicating Authority.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

• The Section 9 application is non-maintainable due to the dates of default falling within the Section 10A period.
• The Adjudicating Authority correctly dismissed the application without amending the dates of default.

---