Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 329 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of pre-existing dispute or not - Service of notice - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - Appeal is dismissed on the ground that the same is filed beyond 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order which is beyond the statutory period as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the notice issued against the Corporate Debtor returned unserved because of ‘insufficient address’. After that, without exploring the possibility of service by other modes like email, the Adjudicating Authority passed the order for substituted service by publication of notice in the newspaper. In such circumstances, passing of an order for an ex-parte hearing against the Corporate Debtor, based on substituted service, cannot be held proper in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Neerja Realtors (P) Ltd [2018 (1) TMI 1536 - SUPREME COURT ]. Admittedly, in this case, the demand notice, dated 22nd March 2019, in Form-3, was issued against the Corporate Debtor by registered post, which could not be served on account of insufficient address. After that, the demand notice dated 21st May 2019 in Form-3 was again sent through speed post. On perusal of the email dated 14th July 2018, it appears that the Corporate Debtor objected to ‘the posting of wrong revenue on barter ledgers’. It also appears from a perusal of email correspondence dated 17th October 2018 that the Corporate Debtor objected to releasing post-dated cheque of ₹ 73 lakhs without keeping it informed to the Corporate Debtor. It is also stated in the email that management fees will be paid after the barter reconciliation issue is resolved. By perusal of email communication dated 17th January 2019, it appears that dispute was raised regarding the quality of services. On perusal of email dated 14th March 2019, it appears that the Corporate Debtor raised the issue regarding service rendered by the Operational Creditor. It also shows that the Corporate Debtor informed the operational Creditor of taking over the complete management in its own hands because of being dissatisfied with the services rendered by the Operational Creditor. All these correspondences are before issuance of demand notice. Thus, there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the operation of management and services provided by the Respondent No.1 before the issuance of the demand notice dated 21.05.2019 under Section 8 of the I&B Code. In the present case, it is crystal clear that there was a pre-existing dispute, even though the Adjudicating Authority admitted the Application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by the impugned order - petition admitted - moratorium declared.
|