TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustries Limited for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor, viz., Jay Prestressed Products Limited. The amount of default has been claimed at Rs. 83,27,646/- including interest of Rs. 9,16,960/-. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the operational creditor, on receipt of purchase orders for supply of SGCI Inserts and metal liners as per specifications, supplied materials after due inspection by RITES Ltd. from 19/12/2015 till 24/8/2016. The corporate debtor has also made part payment to the tune of Rs. 34 lakh from time-to-time. The balance amount remains unpaid. 3. The operational creditor also filed a civil suit being CS No. 16/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The Hon'ble....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e operational creditor. There existed no dispute and the point raised in the reply to the demand notice had not been substantiated by bringing any materials on record, hence, no cognizance to such dispute/allegation was to be given. 8. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the corporate debtor initiated his arguments by stating that the operational creditor had suppressed the fact that an application has been filed by the corporate debtor for recalling the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. In this regard, he submitted that such application was filed by the corporate debtor in May 2018 whereas the petition under Sec.9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had been filed by the operational creditor in June 2018 and this fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact of recalling application being filed by the corporate debtor had been mentioned while taking note of reply of corporate debtor to notice delivered under Sec.8 and, therefore, it could not be said that it was a case of suppression of fact. 12. Ld. Counsel further contended that even the claim of rejection of goods by the railway was not correct and in this regard he drew our attention to page 6 of the rejoinder to show that an application was filed under RTI Act with the railways wherein information regarding rejection of any goods was sought for and it was revealed that no such rejection for quality issue ever took place in the instant case. 13. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and materials on record. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in all respects and complies with the requirements of provisions of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with regulations thereto. 14. It reveals from the record that the applicant has not proposed any name of Interim Resolution Professional which is not necessary in case of application filed under Sec.9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Hence, we approve the name of Shri Nitesh Kumar More, IP Registration No. IBBI/IPA- 001/IP-P01087/2017-18-11785 email id nmore209 [email protected] Mob. No.8336087901 as IRP as he/she is on the panel approved by Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. 15. In view of the above discussion, we admit the application and order as under:- ORDER ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002); (d) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. v. The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated, suspended, or interrupted during moratorium period. vi. The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. vii. The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of admission till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. ....