Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1133 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - dispute regarding the quality of goods - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is very much clear that though the last invoice was raised on 05.10.2015 but the last payment having been made on 19.06.2017 and there is a running account admittedly towards its outstanding to the Appellant. It would extend the period of limitations as per provision of the Limitation Act. As the Appeal has been filed on 24.06.2019 which is within three years from the last transactions of June 2017. Section 8 & 9 of the Code clearly provides for the requirements of following three criteria’s before admission of a petition under Section 9 of the Code for initiation of CIRP by OC (i) the ‘Debt’ must be due and payable in law (ii)there must be occurrence of default & (iii) the ‘Debt’ must be undisputed. The OC has issued a demand notice of unpaid operational debt to the CD in the requisite format but the CD/Respondent No.1 has raised a dispute which apparently could not be answered by the OC as the OC has neither done the inspection so far nor has taken back the goods so supplied. The OC has factually failed to communicate that there is no existence of dispute. Further the proceeding under the Code is not for chasing payments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh limited Vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Limited [2018 (10) TMI 1337 - SUPREME COURT] has already held that IBC is not intended to be a substitute to a recovery forum and also laid down that whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked. The view of the Adjudicating Authority is upheld.
|