Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 832 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - orporate Debtor failed to pay the outstanding amount of ₹ 3,29,415/- - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has admittedly registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”) and thus services rendered by the Petitioner covers under the provisions of MSMED Act and remedy is available under the Act. In fact, the said legal notice issued under the provisions of MSMED Act and copy of the notice was forwarded to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council of Bangalore in accordance with Section 18 of the MSMED Act, for appropriate action. Instead of prosecuting the remedy under the provisions “MSMED Act”, and the instant Company Petition is filed under the provisions of the Code. As per Section 8(1) of Code, an Operational creditor should deliver demand notice of unpaid operational Creditor, a copy of an invoices demanding payment of the amount in the default to the Corporate Debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The petitioner is admittedly has not issued demand notice prescribed under the Code and they have issued legal notice under the Provisions of MSMED Act - The petitioner also failed to substantiate the service rendered to the Corporate Debtor so as to claim the alleged outstanding amount except demand notice and Engagement letter and it failed to furnish details of Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the instant petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed by giving liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the remedy available under MSEME Act. Petition dismissed.
|