https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752327 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752327 Admissibility of CIRP u/s 9 of the IBC - petition filed without delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC - Appellant is liable to pay the outstanding dues to the Operational Creditor or not - existence of debt or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no tripartite agreement on record which could have guided the mode and responsibilities of payment. Without any agreement in place, in the facts of the instant case, the responsibility to repay the outstanding dues remains on the Appellant. As the IBC proceedings are self-contained which govern the course of action in such situations, the Appellant cannot take refuge of Section 230 Indian Contract Act, 1872 that the agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by, contracts on behalf of principal and pass on its liability to VIL. Validity or otherwise of the service of Demand notice - HELD THAT:- Demand notice dated 31.07.2018 was sent by registered post on 01.08.2018 to the registered address of the Corporate Debtor, which was not replied to by the Corporate Debtor. Some documentary evidence is available on record, which includes the details of the India Post and the postal receipt, which indicate that the demand notice has been issued, even though the addresses are not fully legible and correct in the receipt and acknowledgement. This will not make any material difference as both parties have been dealing in business for long and were continuously exchanging lot of emails - Furthermore, the Applicant never disputed the address on which the demand notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor. But it has merely questioned the failure of proof of the service of the statutory demand notice, which appears to be spurious granted and unsustainable. The Adjudicating Authority has clearly brought out that as per records, the date of default is 12.12.2015. The TMPL acknowledged the debt and paid certain invoices and also facilitated in barter arrangement in the year 2017. Later on, there is an admission of liability by way of emails dated 21.07.2017 and again on 18.09.2017, which amounts to the admission of liability. Since there is an admission of liability on 18.09.2017, their cannot be any question of claims to be time barred as the period of limitation starts afresh from the date of admission of 18.09.2017. There is a clear admission with respect to the unpaid invoices / outstanding dues by the Corporate Debtor, with no dispute or denial of any kind. It is clearly brought out that there is a debt in terms of Section 5(21) of the Code and that there is also a default in terms of Section 3(12) of the Code and also the debt is within the period of limitation and there is no dispute raised at any point of time. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that it satisfies the requirement for admission under Section 9 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. There are no error in the orders of the Adjudicating Authority - appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530