Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 5 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - pre-existing dispute or not - Service of notice - whether a notice of dispute has been received by Sidana and the application is required to be rejected on this ground? - HELD THAT:- The dispute sought to be raised on the basis of undated letter received in June, 2018 is a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence and is spurious, hypothetical or illusory. Therefore, the pre-existence of the dispute cannot be accepted. Application in Form No.5 - only objection taken by Bhandari Hosiery was in respect of the petition being instituted in the name of the proprietorship concern - HELD THAT:- This objection was considered and vide order dated 29.10.2019, opportunity was given to Sidana to rectify the defect in the application and the defect was rectified vide diary No.6135, dated 05.11.2019. The copies of invoices as well as the ledger account of Bhandari Hosiery in the books of Sidana have been enclosed with the petition to show that debt of ₹ 2,20,116/- is outstanding and in default. It is discussed above that demand notice dated 20.08.2018 was sent by Sidana under Section 8 of the Code and notice of dispute was received vide letter dated 28.08.2018 - the notice cannot be treated as a notice of pre-existing dispute. There is no proposal for appointment of IRP and, therefore, the pendency of disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed Resolution Professional does not arise. The conditions provided for in Section 9(5) (i) of the Code are satisfied in the present case - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
|