Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1690 - 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 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Since there is no dispute raised with regard to the outstanding amount in question and it default, and Corporate Debtor claimed that it is solvent Company, the Adjudicating Authority has granted sufficient time to resolve/settle the issue raised in the instant Company petition, in the light of several cases pending against it. However, the Respondent failed to avail the opportunity given by the Adjudicating Authority, even though several adjournment have been granted to them right from 2017 till date and thus there is no other alternative for us except to consider the matter as per its merits and pass appropriate orders. It is not in dispute that the Respondent is facing several cases filed by Homebuyers/vendors etc. The Respondent has not filed any single document to substantiate its contentions raised in it. It has not filed its balance sheet to substantiate its contention that it is solvent Company and its net worth is positive. Law provide protection to genuine Companies from misusing provisions of the Code by un-scrupulous elements. Therefore, provisions of Code and the rules made thereunder, mandate Operational Creditors to cause statutory demand notice to Corporate Debtor so as to put their defence by way of reply. In the instant case, as stated supra, the basic facts of employment of Petitioner in the Company is not dispute and the Respondents has not produced any evidence to show that the claims of Petitioner is settled prior/post issue of Demand notice. Moreover, they have started raising frivolous defences in the instant case, when notice was given to them. All the post allegations like service of petitioner was poor, not contributed for the welfare of the Company etc. are afterthoughts. As stated supra, it is not case of Respondent that services of Petitioner was terminated but he himself has voluntarily resigned. The Contention of the Respondent that the case is barred by latches and limitation is not borne by facts of case, and the debt and default in question is admittedly not in dispute. The Respondent is facing another case as mentioned supra, apart from several cases before several Courts. Therefore, it prima facie show that the Company is not solvent Company as claimed - It is settled position of law that once debt and default in question is proved, and there being no dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor, in an Application /Petition filed U/s 9 of Code, it is mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to initiate CIRP, appoint IRP, impose moratorium etc. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
|