9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.12.2019 admitted the application declaring moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 appointing Shi Jasin Jose, a registered Insolvency Professional as the Interim resolution Profession to conduct the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP for short), with the following directions: 1. In the aforesaid background, and after thoroughly perusing the records, we are of the view that, the application filed on behalf of Financial Creditor is complete. Therefore, this application under Section 7(5)(a) of the I & B Code, 2016 deserves to be Admitted. 2. Accordingly. the IRP proposed by the Financial Creditor, Jasin Jose, residing at Ponmattam, Madaserry House, Mookkannoor, P.O Ernakulam, Kerala-683577,, a registered Insolvency Professional having registration No. IBBI/IPA- 001/IP-P00695/2017-2018/11225 (Email id- [email protected]), is hereby appointed as Interim Resolution Professional to conduct the Insolvency Resolution Process. 3. Having admitted the Petition/Application, the provisions of Moratorium as prescribed under Section 14 of the Code shall be operative henceforth with effect from the date of order shall be applicable by pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r till March, 2020. Thereafter since there was no production, the applicant wanted to take back the machineries from the Corporate Debtor. But this was not done due the Covid 19 nationwide lockdown. However, when the applicant deputed one of their representatives to the Corporate Debtor, it was stated by the Corporate Debtor that since the CIRP has been started, the applicant had to get approval of the 2nd respondent Resolution Professional. Hence, the applicant sent a mail on 15.7.2020 to the Resolution Professional, to which they received a reply that the removal of machinery could only be permitted after inspection and settlement of accounts. It is also stated by the RP that a show cause notice dated 3.5.2020 was received from the Central GST Department in relation to stock transfer from the applicant. However, the applicant replied to the same stating that the show cause notice was a completely unrelated issue and that the applicant shall support and assist the Corporate Debtor with regard to the CGST issue. In the meantime the applicant requested the CGST Department to grant time to file a reply to the show cause notice, However this request was declined by the 2nd respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inued the contract, the Resolution Profession has laid off the workers and employees of the Corporate Debtor keeping the security staff to protect the machinery of the Applicant. The Resolution Professional further stated that they have no objection in removing the machinery, provided the applicant satisfy the following conditions: (a) An amount of Rs. 2,95,400/- is due from the Applicant towards the manufacturing charges, which is to be paid by the applicant before removing the machineries mentioned in Annexure.1. (b) Since the Resolution professional had to continue three securities personnel to protect the machines despite discontinuation, the security charges of at least two securities which amounts to Rs. 25345/- per month for a period of six months from 1st April 2020 till the applicant removes the machinery from the factory. Six months bill on that count is Rs. 31680x6= Rs. 1,90,080/-. (c) Since certain machineries cannot be removed without demolishing the wall, the applicant should undertake that while removing the machinery from the factory premises of the Corporate Debtor, no major damages would happen to the building. Applicant should reimburse the cost for the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f April, May and June, 2020, which has already been paid towards security charges. 4. We further undertake that no damage will b e caused to the factory premies on account of removal of machinery as we will be able to dismantle the machinery and lift the same from the premises of Brito Food Pvt.Ltd within ten days,. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Sharad Joseph Kodianthara and the learned counsel for the Resolution Professional Shri Vinod PV and have also gone through the statement filed by the 2nd respondent Resolution Professional and the undertaking filed by the applicant. In the statement, in regard to payment for the security arrangements of the Corporate Debtor it is stated that even though three securities have been arranged to guard the Corporate Debtor premises to keep the machineries, the Resolution Professional has limited it into two securities charges and claimed the six months charges of Rs. 1,90,080. Since the applicant undertake to make payment of Rs. 75,000/- in addition to Rs. 38,414/- already paid by them, the Resolution Professional should accept that amount, as the Corporate Debtor property is still under the possession of the Reso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
