Miss Lucy
← All judgments

In the matter of Hyderabad Metchem Private Ltd.

National Company Law Tribunal29 October 2021

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal holds that consistent absence of the corporate debtor after notice and newspaper publication amounts to a tacit admission of the debt and default, so that the Adjudicating Authority may proceed to adjudicate the petition without the respondent's assistance. Where an operational creditor's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is supported by documents showing supply of goods, receipt of those goods by the corporate debtor (evidenced by the demand notice and invoice in Form-3, the notice in Form-4, and transport way-bills), and a demand notice served on the corporate debtor without payment or any dispute raised under Section 9(5)(ii)(d), the operational debt and default are established and the application is admitted.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

SL No. 126

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SPECIAL BENCH COURT 1 (HEARINGS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) - PRESENT: HON'BLE DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA- MEMBER JUDICIAL HON'BLE SHRI VEERA BRAHMA RAO AREKAPUDI MEMBER TECHNICAL - ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON 29.10.2021 AT 10:30 AM TRANSFER PETITION NO. COMPANY PETITION/APPLICATION NO. CP (IB) No. 83/9/HDB/2020 NAME OF THE COMPANY Hyderabad Metchem Pvt Ltd NAME OF THE PETITIONER(S) Honest Enterprise Pvt Ltd NAME OF THE RESPONDENT(S) Hyderabad Metchem Pvt Ltd UNDER SECTION 9 of IBC

Counsel for Petitioner(s): Name of the Counsel(s) Designation E-mail & Telephone No. Signature

Counsel for Respondent(s): Name of the Counsel(s) Designation E-mail & Telephone No. Signature

ORDER

CP 83/9/HDB/2020 is admitted. Orders passed vide separate orders.

Mil MEMBER (T) MEMBER(J)

Syamala

CP IB No.93/9/HDB/2020. Honest Enterprise Vs. Hyderabad Metchem

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD

CP (IB) No.83/9/HDB/2020

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 9 OF I&B CODE, 2016 READ WITH RULE 6 OF I&B (AAA) RULES, 2016 In the matter of Hyderabad Metchem Private Limited

Honest Enterprise Private Limited 118, Meghdoot Aptt., Nr. Apsara Cinema Pratapnagar Road Vadodara 390004. – Petitioner (Operational Creditor)

VERSUS

Hyderabad Metchem Private Ltd Plot No.34, Cie Phase Iigandhi Nagar Opp Idpl Colony Hyderabad 500037. - Respondent .. (Corporate Debtor)

Date of order: 29th October 2021

Coram: HON'BLE DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON'BLE SHRI VEERA BRAHMA RAO AREKAPUDI MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Parties / counsels present: For the Petitioner: Dr.S.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate.

Per Bench

Heard on: 15.07.2021, 27.08.2021, and 20.10.2021.

Al

CP IB No.93/9/HDB/2020. Honest Enterprise Vs. Hyderabad Metchem

ORDER

This petition is filed by Operational Creditor/ Honest Enterprises Private Limited claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,27,754/- to be operational debt as on 21.10.2019, based on transactions as per Annexure 'A', which includes interest.

2. Hence this petition is filed under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, seeking admission of the petition, initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, granting moratorium and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional as prescribed under the Code and Rules thereon.

3. The averments made in the petition are as follows: 3.1 The Operational Creditor is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at Vadodara, Gujarat. The Corporate Debtor too is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at Hyderabad. The respondent/ Corporate Debtor received goods from the applicant. The applicant raised invoices for the goods supplied amounting Rs.69,99.543/-to 3.2 The applicant had raised invoices dated 23rd and 24th March 2012, issued Demand Notice dated 07.06.2019 (page 32-33) to the respondent, and the said Demand Notice was also served on the present Directors of the respondent/ Corporate Debtor vide Registered Post on 11.06.2019. The respondent has neither made payment nor raised any dispute under section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the I&B Code, 2016.

4. The petitioner/ Operational Creditor has filed Memo of Service of Notice dated 27.02.2020, Memo dated 30.09.2021 furnishing proof of newspaper publication of Notice. In spite of notice/ newspaper publication there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/ Corporate Debtor. Vide order dated 20.10.2021, the respondent/ Corporate Debtor has been treated as ex parte.

5. We are of the opinion that consistent absence of the Corporate Debtor amounts to tacit admission of debt and default. We have,

Hdar

CP IB No.93/9/HDB/2020. Honest Enterprise Vs. Hyderabad Metchem therefore, no option but to adjudicate the matter without assistance of the respondent.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Operational Creditor and perused the documents produced on record. As stated above the operational creditor has filed copies of various documents. In the present case, there is no doubt with regard to supply of goods made by Operational Creditor and the same having received by the Corporate Debtor, by virtue of Demand Notice/ Invoice in Form-3 (pages 32-33), Form of Notice in Form-4 (pages 34-36), and Transport Way-Bills (pages 16, 19, 22, 25 and 28).

7. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority admits this Petition under Section 9 of IBC, 2016, declaring moratorium for the purposes referred to in Section 14 of the Code, with following directions:

(A) Corporate Debtor, M/s Hyderabad Metchem Private Limited is admitted in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (B) The Bench hereby prohibits 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; transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002); the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in possession of the corporate Debtor; (C) That the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. (D) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator

NIV

CP IB No.93/9/HDB/2020. Honest Enterprise Vs. Hyderabad Metchem or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concessions, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period. (E) That the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. (F) That the order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or until this Bench approves the Resolution Plan under Sub-Section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33, whichever is earlier. (G)That the public announcement of the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process shall be made immediately as prescribed under section 13 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (H) That this Bench hereby appoints Shri Pradeep Kumar Kabra, having IBBI Registration No.IBBI/ IPA-001/ IP-P01104/ 2017-18/ 11790, as Interim Resolution Professional to carry the functions as mentioned under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. He has filed Form-2 issued by the Institute of Insolvency Professionals. His Authorisation for Assignment is valid upto 30.12.2021. This information is also available in IBBI Website. Thus, there is compliance of Regulation 7A of IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, as amended. Therefore, the proposed IRP is fit to be appointed as IRP since the relevant provision is complied with.

8. Accordingly, this Petition is admitted. 9. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad for appropriately changing the status of Corporate Debtor herein on the MCA-21 site of Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Hnanr VEERA BRAHMA RAO AREKAPUDI VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

karim

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