Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (2) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1425 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The corporate debtor has tried to create and establish a preexisting dispute by asserting the sub standard quality and overpricing of air conditioners which was raised only after notice under section 8 of IBC was issued, without any supporting evidence. The corporate debtor has not placed on record any document which exhibits the plausible dispute between the parties. It can be thus inferred that there is no merit in the so-called dispute raised by the corporate debtor in reply to this application. This leaves no doubt that the default has occurred with respect to the payment of the operational debt of the applicant. Thus mere reply filed by the corporate debtor to the present application, is unable to establish any pre-existing dispute of genuine nature and the said is merely a moonshine dispute - The date of default occurred from 13-10-2018 and the present application is filed on 4-9-2019. Hence the application is not time barred and filed within the period of limitation. The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application - It is pertinent to note that the corporate debtor has not placed on record any correspondences between the parties with respect to any disputes raised by the corporate debtor. The Applicant has filed an affidavit under section 9(3) (b) affirming that the corporate debtor has not raised any pre-existing dispute as regards the amount of operational debt claimed by the applicant. Further, it is submitted that the statutorily prescribed time period for replying to the demand notice is 10 days, the counsel for corporate debtor belatedly issued a reply dated 4-6-2019 whereby they raised false and frivolous contents which were not pre existing at the time of issuance of Demand Notice dated 18-5-2019 and despite the delay of 10 days from the date of service of demand notice the corporate debtor has failed to show pendency of proceedings related to the said debt or any pre-existing dispute - The present application is filed on the Performa prescribed under Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 r/w Section 9 of the code and is complete. The default has occurred of the debt which is due and payable since 13-10-2018, Therefore, the applicant is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt. Hence, the application is admitted. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
|