In the matter of Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd.
- CitationC.P.(IB)No.98/BB/2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a corporate debtor, in response to a Section 9 petition, does not dispute the operational debt and asks only for time to pay, the existence of debt and default is established, and the Tribunal may admit the petition; the corporate debtor's request for time, and its plea that a company should not be subjected to insolvency merely because it cannot pay, do not defeat admission. For the purpose of the limitation period under Section 9 read with the three-year limitation, only invoices falling within the three years preceding the date of filing the petition are considered; invoices outside that period are excluded from the computation of the operational debt. Amounts actually paid by the corporate debtor against the in-time invoices, including payments on account and debit notes, are deducted from the invoice amounts to arrive at the outstanding debt, and where the resulting unpaid sum meets the threshold of Rs.1 crore, the threshold requirement is satisfied and the petition may be admitted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU [Through Physical hearing/VC Mode (Hybrid)] ITEM No.11 C.P.(IB)No.98/BB/2024 IN THE MATTER OF: M/s. Total Solutions Intec Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Vs. M/s. Buoyant Technology Constellation Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent Order under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Order delivered on: 23.08.2024 CORAM: SH. K. BISWAL HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SH. MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) PRESENT: For the Petitioner : Shri Atul Madhavan For the Respondent : Shri Anish Acharya ORDER 1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Operational Creditor on 02.02.2024, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity ‘IBC/Code’), read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, by M/s. Total Solutions Intec Pvt. Ltd (for brevity ‘Operational Creditor/ Petitioner’) inter alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘Corporate Debtor/ Respondent’) on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has committed a default for a total outstanding amount of Rs.2,15,03,181/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifteen Lakhs Three Thousand One Hundred and Eighty one only) as on 11.11.2023. Further, in Item No.2 of Part-IV filed with the Petition, it is stated that the total amount of default is Rs.2,15,03,181/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifteen Lakhs Three Thousand One Hundred and Eighty one only) and the date of default in Form No.5 is mentioned as 11.11.2023.
:2: 2. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant to the issue in question, and as narrated by the Petitioner as follows: i. The Corporate Debtor is engaged in the business of real estate, construction, sale and other related activities. ii. The Operational Creditor/Petitioner is engaged in the business of Integrated Solutions since 2000, specializing in fire safety equipment. Over two decades of dedicated service have established it as a leading playing in the industry. The Operational Creditor supplied various fire safety equipment to the Corporate Debtor since 2015 and subsequently raised invoices amounting to Rs.8,00,26,850/- out of which the Corporate Debtor has paid only Rs.5,85,23,669/-. Therefore, the Corporate Debtor has an outstanding liability of Rs.2,15,03,181/- which stands due and payable till date. It is further submitted that the Corporate Debtor since 31.03.2023 had stopped making any payments to the Operational Creditor, despite several requests and reminders. iii. It is submitted that the Operational Creditor maintains a running Account with the Corporate Debtor. It is further submitted that the Balance confirmation documents, duly signed by the Corporate Debtor on 05.04.2016, 03.04.2017, 07.04.2018, 08.04.2019, 02.04.2020, 02.04.2021, 03.04.2022 and 03.04.2023 would reveal that the Corporate Debtor has admitted its liability. iv. It is submitted that as per the Section 8 of the Code, a statutory demand notice dated 19.12.2023 was sent to the Corporate Debtor, demanding the total default amount of Rs.2,15,03,181/- via speed post and the said demand notice was duly received by the Corporate Debtor on 22.12.2023. Despite lapse of ten days, which has expired on 01.01.2024, the Corporate Debtor had neither paid the said operational debt nor has raised any dispute in respect of the said debt. Therefore, this Petition has been filed U/s.9 of the IBC, 2016. As per Part-IV and Col.2 of Form-5, it is stated that total amount of default is Rs.2,15,03,181/- and the Date of default is mentioned as 11.11.2023. v. The Operational Creditor has proposed the name of Shri Shaikh Nafis
:3: Anjum, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IPA-ICAI-N-00211/ 2018-2019/12363 as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor. And he has filed Form-2 dated 02.01.2024, Written Communication.
3. The Respondent/Corporate Debtor has filed reply vide Dy.No.3184 dated 04.06.2024 in which it was stated as under: i. It is stated that the invoices for the supply of goods and services pertaining to fire safety equipment and apparatus, based on work orders, total Rs.8,00,26,850/-. Out of this amount, the Corporate Debtor has duly paid a major portion of Rs.5,87,75,890/- to the Operational Creditor, and only an amount of Rs.2,12,50,960/- was outstanding. The Corporate Debtor has assured the Operational Creditor regarding making the payment in due course. ii. It is further stated that the Corporate Debtor apprised the Operational Creditor about the precarious financial condition and had only sought a window of time from the Operational Creditor for settling the said liability from time to time. However, the Operational Creditor did not pay any heed. It is further contended that, though the Corporate Debtor had given the impugned Balance Confirmation, which has been relied upon by the Operational Creditor, it should not be considered as an admission of the liability since it did not mention the details of particulars regarding the amounts to be settled between the parties as part of their business arrangements. The Respondent further submits that they were more than willing to settle the liability with the Operational Creditor and the only request made by the Corporate Debtor to give some time to settle the said liabilities. It is also stated that a Company should not be subjected to the rigors of insolvency merely because it is unable to pay its debt, even if the debts have been admitted and the liability remains undisputed.
4. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Counsel for the Respondent, and perused the pleadings. 5. As stated supra, the Corporate Debtor did not dispute the debt and has requested for more time to clear the balance debt. It is clearly established
:4: that there is an outstanding debt in respect of the invoices mentioned in Form-5 and the Demand Notice U/s.8 in Form-3. The Petitioner was directed to furnish a list of such invoices and the outstanding amount pertaining to the same. It is noticed that the Petition was filed on 02.02.2024, and therefore under consideration would be the invoices pertaining to a period of within three years prior to the filing of the Petition so as to take care of the limitation aspect. The details of the outstanding invoices was filed vide Diary No.3874 dated 04.07.2024, which is reproduced below: Sl. Date of Invoice Invoice Number Invoice Part Payment Remaining No. Amount (in Rs.) Outstanding (in Rs.) Payment 1. 19-11-2015 Invoice No. 278 7,59,071 7,21,117 37,954 2. 13-01-2016 Invoice No. 381 55,55,629 51,13,647 4,41,982 3. 14-03-2016 Invoice No. 454 96,67,715 91,84,329 4,83,386 4. 09-08-2016 Invoice No. 174, 175, 60,75,791 62,72,339 -1,96,548 176 5. 07-11-2016 Invoice No. 318, 319, 42, 16, 446 38,41,424 3,75,022 320 6. 11-01-2017 Invoice No. 462, 463, 2,04,78,578 1,85,52,526 19,26,052 464 7. 06-03-2017 Invoice No. 553 27,03,965 30,54,378 -3,50,413 8. 08-12-2017 Invoice No. 105,106,107 16,22,115 15,41,009 81,106 9. 19-12-2017 Invoice No. 131, 132, 45,92,572 43,19,692 2,72,880 133 10. 04-01-2018 Invoice No. 156, 157, 95,43,140 18,11,748 77,31,392 158, 159 11. 20-01-2023 TSI-370/2022-2023 11,63,287 11,633 11,51,654 12. 02-05-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 43 12,03,279 - 12,03,279 13. 20-07-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 149 11,80,000 - 11,80,000 14. 04-11-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 302 45,84,234 - 45,84,234 15. 04-11-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 298 2,12,399 - 2,12,399 16. 04-11-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 299 1,30,265 - 1,30,265 17. 04-11-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 300 4,13,000 - 4,13,000 18. 04-11-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 303 50,66,477 - 50,66,477 19. 04-11-2023 Invoice No. TSI- 301 1,60,328 - 1,60,328 20. - Invoice No. 204 6,98,559 6,50,677 47,882 21. - On account payment - 24,83,804 -24,83,804 mode 22. - Debit Note - 9,65,345 -9,65,345 Total 8,00,26,850 5,85,23,669 2,15,03,181
:5:
From the above table, it is abundantly clear that while the invoices listed from Sl.No.1 to 10 are beyond the three year period prior to the date of filing the Petition, the invoices from Sl.No.11 to 20, which are up to 04.11.2023, fall within the limitation period. The total amount of these invoices which are within the period of limitation, i.e. from Sl.No.11 to 20 works out to Rs.1,41,49,518/-, out of which payment of Rs.24,83,804/- and Rs.9,65,345/- have been made, as mentioned in Sl.No.21 and 22 of the table. Therefore, the remaining outstanding amount is Rs.1,07,00,369/-, which meets the threshold requirement of Rs. One Crore. This constitutes the admitted debt and default, after considering the submission made by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor as discussed above. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the Petition filed U/s.9 of the IBC, 2016.
6. In view of the above discussion, the existence of the debt and default is established. Therefore, the present Petition bearing C.P.(IB)No.98/ BB/2024 is admitted in respect of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Buoyant Technology Constellation Pvt. Ltd., under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016. Accordingly, moratorium is declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code. As necessary consequences of the moratorium in terms of Section 14, the following prohibitions are imposed, which must be followed by all and sundry:
(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 Securitization 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;
:6:
(e) It is further directed that the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor as may be specified, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period; (f) The provisions of Sub- Section 14 (3) shall however, not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator and to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a Corporate Debtor; (g) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or until this Bench approves the Resolution Plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passed an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33 as the case may be;
7. In Part-III of Form No.5, the Operational Creditor has proposed the name of Shri Shaikh Nafis Anjum, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IPA-ICAI- N-00211/2018-2019/12363 as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor. Form-2 dated 02.01.2024, Written Communication by the IRP has been filed along with the C.P is found at Page 36 of the Petition.
8. In view of the above, we hereby appoint Shri Shaikh Nafis Anjum, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IPA-ICAI-N-00211/2018-2019/12363 having registered address at No.A-34, Lower Ground, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110018, Contact No. 97171 28400, e-mail: sn.anjum123@gmail.com as the Interim Resolution Professional to carry the functions as mentioned under the IBC, the fee payable to IRP/RP shall comply with the IBBI Regulations/Circulars/Directions issued in this regard. The IRP is directed to take the steps as mandated under Section 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the IBC 2016.
9. The Operational Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with the IRP to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. These expenses are subject to approval by the Committee of Creditors.
:7: 10. The Interim Resolution Professional shall after collation of all the claims received against the Corporate Debtor and the determination of the financial position of the Corporate Debtor constitute a Committee of Creditors and shall file a report, certifying constitution of the Committee to this Tribunal on or before the expiry of thirty days from the date of his appointment, and shall convene first meeting of the Committee within seven days for filing the report of Constitution of the Committee. The Interim Resolution Professional is further directed to send regular progress reports to this Tribunal every fortnight.
11. A copy of the order shall be communicated to both the parties. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner shall deliver a copy of this order to the Interim Resolution Professional forthwith. The Registry is also directed to send the copy of this order to the Interim Resolution Professional at his e-mail address forthwith.
-Sd- -Sd- MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY K. BISWAL MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shruthi
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free