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 1733 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - Whether the Petition is barred under Section 11 of I&B Code? - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the provision of section 11 makes it clear that the Code prohibits certain persons from making an Application under this code. It is the argument of the Corporate Debtor that since the Petitioner Company is undergoing CIRP the same is barred under Section 11 from making any application before this tribunal through its Resolution Professional - The intent of the legislature was to stop re-filing of Insolvency proceedings against the same corporate Debtor again and again. This is clearly now the case here. Therefore, this argument of the Corporate Debtor is rejected forthwith. Since the resolution process has already elapsed and neither the CoC or the Resolution professional exist any longer, is this petition anymore maintainable? - HELD THAT:- As per section 35 (1) (d) r/w section 35 (1) (k) of the Code the Liquidator herein is completely authorised to represent the Petitioner company before this Tribunal. So, the argument of the Corporate Debtor doesn’t have any merit and is rejected. Whether there is any ‘existence of dispute’ between the parties? - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor had never even once raised a single shred of objection or dispute against the Petitioner in the past seven years about either quality of good or anything else. It was for the first time that the Corporate Debtor only after receiving a notice from the Petitioner started raising disputes - from prima facie it is clear that the ‘dispute’ raised by the Corporate Debtor is patently feeble and is an assertion which is not supported by any evidence. This defence of the Corporate Debtor also has no merit and is therefore rejected. Thus, the Corporate Debtor defaulted in making the payment towards the liability to the Petitioner and the petition deserves to be admitted - application admitted - moratorium declared.
|