9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 573 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The Bench notes that the Petitioner has supplied goods as per the purchase orders issued by the Corporate Debtor from time to time. The ledger account shows the details of invoices, monies paid by Corporate Debtor and monies outstanding to be paid by Corporate Debtor - The Bench also notes that appropriate invoices in respect of the same has been placed by the Petitioner upon the Corporate Debtor wherein the goods supplied and the amount mentioned in the invoices has been admitted in all cases by the Corporate Debtor. This bench is of the considered view that the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay the total amount of ₹ 1,01,12,793/- which includes principal of ₹ 46,27,984/- Plus ₹ 54,84,809/- as a compounded interest - the outstanding debt of more than ₹ 1,00,000/- is due and payable against the Corporate Debtor and Corporate Debtor has committed default in making the payment. Hence the petition is admitted. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of operational debt. 2. Default in payment by the Corporate Debtor. 3. Admissibility of the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 5. Declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Existence of Operational Debt: The Petitioner, Mrs. Gutta Anuradha, proprietor of MAK Enviro Technologies, claimed an operational debt of ?1,01,12,793/- against the Corporate Debtor, Unity Appliances Limited. This amount includes ?46,27,984/- as the principal sum and ?54,84,809/- as interest. The goods were supplied as per two purchase orders dated 01.06.2015, and the supply and installation activities were completed and certified by the Corporate Debtor's project department on 15.09.2016. The Petitioner maintained a running ledger account, and despite multiple reminders and meetings, the outstanding amount remained unpaid. 2. Default in Payment by the Corporate Debtor: The Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt and agreed to clear the outstanding dues, including interest, by 31.05.2018. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment within the agreed timeframe. The last payment of ?5,00,000/- was made on 15.11.2017, leaving a principal sum of ?46,27,984/- outstanding. The Corporate Debtor's financial difficulties and market conditions were cited as reasons for the default. 3. Admissibility of the Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: The Petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Petitioner issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC on 12.02.2021, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to make the requisite payments. The Bench noted that the application was filed in proper Form 5, as prescribed under the Adjudicating Authority Rules, and was complete. The outstanding debt of more than ?1,00,000/- was due and payable, and the Corporate Debtor had committed default in making the payment. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP): The Petitioner proposed the name of Mr. Girish Krishna Hingorani, a registered Insolvency Resolution Professional, to carry out the functions of the IRP. The Bench appointed Mr. Girish Krishna Hingorani as the IRP, with the Registration Number [IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00842/2019-20/12695], to oversee the CIRP. 5. Declaration of Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Upon admitting the petition, the Bench declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, which prohibits: a) The institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. b) Transferring, encumbering, or disposing of any assets of the Corporate Debtor. c) Any action to foreclose, recover, or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor. d) Recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by the Corporate Debtor. The moratorium will be effective from the date of the order until the completion of the CIRP or approval of the resolution plan or liquidation order. Conclusion: The petition filed by Mrs. Gutta Anuradha for initiating CIRP against Unity Appliances Limited was admitted. The Bench declared a moratorium and appointed Mr. Girish Krishna Hingorani as the IRP. The commencement of the CIRP shall be effective from the date of the order, and the IRP is directed to comply with the provisions of the IBC, including making a public announcement and submitting a compliance report within 30 days.
|
