Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 879 - 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 - service of demand notice - whether the demand notice in Form 3 dated 06.11.2018 was properly served? - HELD THAT:- The demand notice was duly served upon respondent as per tracking report mentioned at Page 143-144 of the main petition. Therefore, it can be said that the demand notice has been duly served - Moreover, the petition is signed by one of the partners which has been stated on affidavit filed vide Diary No. 00321/3 dated 04.05.2022, which satisfies the condition that demand notice and the petition was duly signed by the Authorized Signatory. Thus, the objection raised by the Ld. counsel for the respondent on this point is invalid. Whether the operational debt was disputed by the corporate debtor? - HELD THAT:- The Learned counsel for respondent has failed to point out as to if there was some pre-existing dispute regarding supplied material being sub-standard in the quality then it was pending in any court of law or before any other authority. Thus, it can be safely inferred from affidavit (page 19 of petition) under Section 9(3) (b) of I&B Code, 2016 that there is no pre-existing dispute in relation to the debt claimed as per Part IV of Form 5. Whether this petition is filed within limitation? - HELD THAT:- A demand notice dated 06.11.2018 in Form 3 attached as Annexure 8 was duly served on the corporate debtor through registered post. It is observed that neither any reply from the corporate debtor has been filed in lieu of the above stated demand notice nor any payment has been made. Therefore, the period of limitation would begin from the date of default i.e. 17.05.2018. This petition was filed on 07.01.2019 vide Diary No. 56. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority finds that this petition was filed within limitation. It is seen that the petition preferred by the petitioner is complete in all respects. The material on record clearly goes to show that the respondent committed default in payment of the claimed operational debt even after demand made by the petitioner - Also, the petitioner proved the debt and the default, which is more than Rupees one lakh (prior to the amendment in threshold limit of one crore vide notification No. S.O.1205(E) dated 24.03.2020) by the respondent-corporate debtor. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
|