2022 (7) TMI 879

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpliance affidavit filed vide Diary No. 00321/3 dated 04.05.2022 as Annexure 1. 2. The Corporate Debtor namely, M/s. Kaytx Industries Private Limited, is a Company incorporated on 20.10.2002 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN No. U27100PB2005PTC029106 with its registered office at Mandi, Gobindgarh Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib, PB-147301 IN. Hence, the territorial jurisdiction lies with this Adjudicating Authority. Copy of master data of corporate debtor is attached with main petition and marked as Annexure 1. 3. The facts of the case, briefly, as stated in the petition are that the operational creditor was approached by the corporate debtor for supply of various steel items i.e. shapes, sections, flats and bars and various invoices were raised. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner in Form 5, Part IV that the principal amount i.e. Rs. 66,79,050/- claimed to be in default and total Rs. 74,02,917.00/- (which is inclusive of 24% interest p.a. i.e Rs. 7,23,867/- from the date of default till date). Copy of invoices (Annexure 4). Copy of bank statement (Annexure 6). Copy of bank certificate (Annexure 7). 5. A demand notice in Form 3 dated 06.11.2018 was duly signed by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rate Debtor is also disputed as no interest was ever charged by the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor for any delay in payments. 6. The demand notice is also defective and hence void as the principal amount claimed in the said demand notice and the date of default mentioned are contrary to the records attached therewith and hence, the complete proceedings are void ab initio. 7. The demand notice was not sent by the authorized person as is evident from the alleged postal receipt annexed with the captioned petition. Also, the tracking report is unauthenticated and seems to be fabricated and manipulated. 9. The following submissions has been averred by the operational creditor in its replication to the reply filed vide Diary No. 1506 dated 24.02.2020. 1. No proof has been provided that the goods rejected by Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. were ever supplied by the petitioner operational creditor. 2. It is also denied that the goods supplied to the corporate debtor by the operational creditor were ever of sub standard quality and moreover the corporate debtor has never raised such dispute prior to filing of this reply. 3. It is stated that the demand notice was duly s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent has failed to point out as to if there was some pre-existing dispute regarding supplied material being sub-standard in the quality then it was pending in any court of law or before any other authority. Thus, it can be safely inferred from affidavit (page 19 of petition) under Section 9(3) (b) of I&B Code, 2016 that there is no pre-existing dispute in relation to the debt claimed as per Part IV of Form 5. 13. The other issue for consideration is whether this petition is filed within limitation. A demand notice dated 06.11.2018 in Form 3 attached as Annexure 8 was duly served on the corporate debtor through registered post. It is observed that neither any reply from the corporate debtor has been filed in lieu of the above stated demand notice nor any payment has been made. Therefore, the period of limitation would begin from the date of default i.e. 17.05.2018. This petition was filed on 07.01.2019 vide Diary No. 56. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority finds that this petition was filed within limitation. 14. We have gone through the contents of the petition filed in the Form 5 and find the same to be complete. As discussed above, there is a total unpaid operational debt (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rporate debtor as may be specified, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. The provisions of Section 14(3) shall however, not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any operational sector regulator and to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. 18. The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33 as the case may be. 19. The Law Research Associate of this Tribunal has checked the credentials of Mr. Aditya Kumar and there is nothing adverse against him. In view of the above, we appoint Mr. Aditya Kumar, Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00338/2017-18/10609,E-mail:[email protected], Mobile No. 9810868515 as the Interim Resolution Professional with the following directions:- i.) The term of appointment of Mr. Aditya Kumar shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(5) of the Code; ii.) In terms of Section 17 o....