Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1591 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor faield to make repayment of its dues - financial debt or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There is no room for argument advanced on behalf of the Corporate Debtor that the provisions of Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been violated while disbursing the loan because the financial debt was initially disbursed in 2013 when the such provisions were not applicable and the petitioner was exempted as a 'Private Company' under Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956. Further after March, 2014 the financial debt disbursed never exceeded the prescribed threshold limits as provided under Section 186(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 to warrant passing of a special resolution. The other argument concerning applicability of Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007 has also failed to impress us because the entire cause of action arose to the petitioner in Delhi including the fact that registered offices of both the entities are situated at Delhi and the said act would only apply to the territory of Punjab and Haryana - The legal position has been put beyond doubt that Section 238 of the Code contains a non-obstante clause which is in the 'widest terms possible'. Therefore, the argument raised on behalf of Corporate Debtor is not sustainable and there are no hesitation to reject the same. ll requirements of Section 7 for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by a Financial Creditor stand fulfilled. In that regard, it has been submitted that the petition as prescribed by Rule 4 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Section 7 (2) of IBC is complete in all respects - A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision would show that form and manner of the application has to be the one as prescribed. It is evident from the record that the application has been filed on the proforma prescribed under Rule 4 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Section 7 of the Code. We are satisfied that a default amounting to lacs of rupees has occurred. As per requirement of Section 4 of the Code if default amount is one lac or more then the CIR Process would be issued. The application under sub section 2 of Section 7 is complete; and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
|