TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . All the compliances have been made and the application is complete and the petition deserves to be admitted. In view of the above, the instant petition is admitted declaring moratorium - CP IB 121-CHD-HRY-2017 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - Mr. R. P. Nagrath And Mr. Pradeep R. Sethi, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Nahush Jain, Advocate Judgment Per: Pradeep R. Sethi, Member (Technical) The petitioner has initiated corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of the respondent M/s Tara Chand Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (to be referred hereinafter as the Code) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (for brevity, the Rules). 2. The respondent M/s Tara Chand Rice Mills Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) having registered office at 4, Milestone, Karnal road, Nissing Haryana-132024 is the exporter, producer and supplier of rice in India and across the world. Therefore, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The respondent was incorporated as a company on 08.02.2013 und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s defect in the description of the institute of insolvency resolution professional in the written communication in Form 2. Notice of these defects was given to the petitioner and learned counsel representing the petitioner accepted the notice and it was directed to remove the defects within seven days. 7. The petitioner removed the defects by filing fresh affidavits in compliance with the order dated 17.01.2018 along with rectified consent letter from the proposed Interim Resolution Professional in Form 2 and revised index of invoices apart from other documents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the application and submitted that the requirements of Section 9 (1) to (3) of the Code as well as Rule 6 of the Rules have been duly complied with. It was further submitted that rectified Form 2 was filed at Annexure AA-2 of diary No.318 dated 29.01.2018. 9. It was contended that the petitioner is working as a commission agent in New Anaj Mandi, Ballabgarh, Faridabad in the name and style of M/s Brij Lal Ashok Kumar and on the demand and request of the respondent, the petitioner was supplying paddy to it from time to time commencing from 21.10.2014 to 03.01.2016 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed as Annexure R-2 with the reply. 12. It is further averred that in the year 2015-16 from 29.10.2015 to 01.03.2016, 54 bills were raised on different dates for a total of 30000 bags of paddy amounting to ₹ 3,74,27,920/- and out of the total 54 bills, paddy received against 24 bills was of inferior quality and contained high moisture and was thus rejected. The value of rejected paddy amounted to ₹ 1,71,02,402/- and that at every instance, whenever the paddy was tested of inferior quality, the petitioner was duly informed of the same and the petitioner was further asked to recall the said inferior paddy. At every such instance, the petitioner requested the respondent to unload and store the said inferior paddy in their premises itself, and further suggested that the petitioner shall get that paddy lifted by itself from there or will settle the rate of such inferior paddy later on with the respondent, as the petitioner did not want to incur the loss of around 9% of recalling the said paddy. It is stated that in this manner, at various instances the paddy received against the 24 bills was unloaded and stored in the premises of the company, at the instructions of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Annexure AA-3 revised index of invoice as corrected and has pleaded that there were still the mistakes therein. 15. In response to the above reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in para 4 of the reply the respondent has accepted that the amount due to the petitioner as per the outstanding invoices was of ₹2,23,89,593/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that the mistakes in Annexure AA-3 revised index of invoice as corrected vide diary No. 318 dated 29.01.2018 were of no significance in view of the acceptance of the liability as above and in view of confirmation by the respondent of the ledger account of the respondent in the books of the petitioner from 01.04.2015 to 28.03.2017 showing debit closing balance of ₹2,28,89,593/-. It is stated that there was a further credit of ₹5,00,000/- on 27.07.2017 in the ledger account of the respondent in the petitioner s books and therefore, before this date, the balance as per the account at page 27 of the application of ₹2,28,89,330.42 was less than the confirmation of debit balance of ₹2,28,89,593/- given by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofessional proposed under sub-section (4), if any. ( ii) reject the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, if- ( a) the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete; ( b) there has been repayment of the unpaid operational debt; ( c) the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor; ( d) notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility; or ( e) any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional: Provided that Adjudicating Authority, shall before rejecting an application under subclause (a) of clause (ii) give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of the date of receipt of such notice from the adjudicating Authority. 18. We find that the requirements of Section 9(1) to (3) are satisfied in the present case. The petition has been filed more than 10 days after the delivery of demand notice dated 27.09.2017. The petitioner filed his affidavit affirming that there is no dispute o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015 to 01.03.2016 for a total of 30000 bags of paddy amounting to ₹3,74,27,920/- was supplied by the petitioner. It is averred that paddy received against 24 bills was of inferior quality and contained high moisture and was thus rejected, the value of which is ₹1,71,02,402/-. It is further stated that the rejected goods worth ₹1,71,02,402/- were sold for ₹46,00,000/- and accordingly, the respondent is liable to pay ₹98,87,191/-. The respondent has referred to testing and analysis reports prepared by it for paddy received against every bill of the petitioner. The copies of these reports prepared for every bill for the year 2014-15 and year 2015-16 have been annexed as Annexure R-2 of diary No.2949 dated 18.12.2017. 22. However, there is no evidence that these reports were brought to the notice of the petitioner. The respondent s contention is all in the air to the effect that at every instance, whenever paddy is tested for inferior quality, the petitioner was duly informed of the same and the petitioner was asked to recall the inferior paddy is without any evidence. There is also no document to suggest that petitioner ever suggested that he will ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 25. In result, thereof, we find that all the compliances have been made and the application is complete and the petition deserves to be admitted. In view of the above, the instant petition is admitted declaring moratorium for prohibiting all of the following in terms of Section 14(1) of the Code: - (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor . 26. It is further directed that the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
