9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') by Mr. Yuvraj Agarwal (Director of Adreek Media P Ltd Authorized vide Board Resolution dated 24.10.2019) and Adreek Media P Limited (for brevity 'Applicants') through Mr. Yuvraj Agarwal (Director of Adreek Media P Limited) with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against M/S ASPEK MEDIA PVT LTD (for brevity 'Corporate Debtor'). 2. The Applicant Adreek Media P Limited, claimed to be the Operational Creditor No.2, is a consultancy service provider, with the identification number being CIN U80100MH2010PPC210169 having its registered office at 701/702, Seventh Floor, Ocean Complex Near Sector 18, Metro s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount is admitted by the the Corporate Debtor which is clearly reflected in its stamped ledger account for a period of 01.04.2017 to 22.09.2019. 5. The Operational Creditors issued Demand Notice dated 24.10.2018 in the form of Form-3 under Section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 vide Registered Post and e-mail, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to clear the amount of default i.e. Rs. 25,70,656/- due to the Operational Creditor and his company within a period of ten days. Instead of making the required payment, the Corporate Debtor caused its advocate to send a Notice of Dispute dated 02.11.2018 in reply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year 2018 the Corporate Debtor discovered that the Operational Creditor No. 1 despite being under contractual obligation to maintain confidentiality of sensitive information of the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor No. 1 not only shared confidential information in an unauthorized manner for its own gain, but was simultaneously running a competing business without informing the Corporate Debtor. On further investigation, it was discovered that during the employment with the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor No. 1, without the knowledge of the Corporate Debtor had initiated profitable business relations with other entities and was competing with the Corporate Debtor in the same line of work. That on 15.12.2016, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appointment Letter. 11. It has been submitted that the Corporate Debtor has been investigating all the dealings of Operational Creditor No. 1 for the financial year 2015-2018, 2018-2017 and 2017-2018, i.e the time period it was functioning as the CEO of the Corporate Debtor. It has been discovered that the Operational Creditor No. 1, in complete violation of its employment Appointment letter had provided various direct services to the Corporate Debtors Client, i.e., Entertainment City Limited, without informing the Corporate Debtor. That after terminating the services of the Operational Creditor No. 1, the Corporate Debtor had made numerous efforts to discuss with Entertainment City Limited the malafide activities of the Operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave the Corporate Debtor from losing its contract with the Entertainment City Limited. 14. Further the Operational Creditor No. 1 submits that the Operational Creditor No. 1 never shared any confidential information of the Corporate Debtor. It has been denied that the Corporate Debtor discovered in 2018 that the Operational Creditor No. 1 was running a competing business. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor was well aware of the Company of the Operational Creditor No. 1 since his appointment and also the credentials of the Operational Creditors No. 1 were well known to the Corporate Debtor as the Operational Creditor No. 1 was well known to the board of management of the Corporate Debtor both personally and professionally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances and the material available on record, it has been observed by the this Adjudicating Authority that Section 8 Demand Notice issued and the application under Section 9 has been filed by both the Operational Creditors jointly. The amount in default is arising out of the claims of a person and a company which is a separate legal entity. In order to deal with the issue in hand we would like to refer to the Judgment of Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. DF Deutsche Forfait AG & Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 39 of 2017 Para as reiterated: " 19. From the aforesaid provisions of Section 8 and 9 of I&B Code, it is clear that unlike Section 7, a notice under Section '8 is to be issued by an "Operational Creditor" individua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
