Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Ranit Basu i/b Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates for the Operational Creditor;
  • Ms. Mugdha Modi i/b M/s. Juris Link, Advocates for the Corporate Debtor.
Judges
  • Rajasekhar V.K., Member (Judicial)
  • Ravikumar Duraisamy, Member (Technical)
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Ranit Basu i/b Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates for the Operational Creditor;
  • Ms. Mugdha Modi i/b M/s. Juris Link, Advocates for the Corporate Debtor.
Judges
  • Rajasekhar V.K., Member (Judicial)
  • Ravikumar Duraisamy, Member (Technical)
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of the Legal Opinion — National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-IV

Factual and Procedural Background

This Company Petition was filed under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by M/s Ercon Composites (Operational Creditor), a partnership firm represented by Mr. Mukul Maheshwari, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against R&M International Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) (CIN: U45202MH2009PTC194919).

The Operational Creditor alleged that it supplied carbon fibre laminates to the Corporate Debtor and that the parties entered into a settlement letter dated 08.07.2014 under which the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay Rs. 79,76,937 in five instalments. The Corporate Debtor paid the first instalment of Rs. 10,00,000, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 69,76,937. The Corporate Debtor subsequently issued a cheque for Rs. 69,76,937 dated 02.03.2015 which, when presented, bounced. Statutory correspondence including a notice under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and later a Demand Notice in Form 3 under section 8 of the IBC (dated 25.09.2017) were placed on record.

The Operational Creditor also filed a winding-up petition before the Bombay High Court; due to transfer rules and notifications, related winding-up proceedings were transferred to this Adjudicating Authority and renumbered as CP(IB) No.749/2017. The Corporate Debtor filed a reply dated 07.03.2019 denying liability on grounds of defective goods and contesting service of the Demand Notice; it also contended the cheque was issued as security and that criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated.

The Tribunal heard both parties, considered the documentary record (including emails, the settlement letter, the cheque and bank return memoranda, statutory notices and other exhibits), and admitted the petition, ordering initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on 01.01.2020.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Operational Creditor has established that a debt was due and payable and that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repayment, thereby meeting the threshold for initiation of CIRP under section 9 of the IBC.
  2. Whether the defence raised by the Corporate Debtor — that the supplied goods were defective and thus it was not contractually obliged to pay — is sufficient to defeat admission of the section 9 petition at this stage.
  3. Whether the Corporate Debtor's contention that the cheque was given only as a security (and subject to stop-payment instructions) rebuts the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the burden to rebut this presumption has been discharged.
  4. Whether the Demand Notice under section 8 of the IBC was served in compliance with applicable rules and, if not, whether the petition still qualifies as a valid application under section 9.

Arguments of the Parties

Operational Creditor's Arguments

  • The Operational Creditor supplied carbon fibre laminates pursuant to orders placed by the Corporate Debtor and relied on a settlement letter dated 08.07.2014 in which the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay Rs. 79,76,937 in five instalments. The settlement letter is on the Corporate Debtor's letterhead and signed by its director, Mr. Gopal Rai (Exhibit D).
  • The Corporate Debtor paid only the first instalment (Rs. 10,00,000), leaving an outstanding debt of Rs. 69,76,937.
  • The Corporate Debtor issued a cheque dated 02.03.2015 for the outstanding amount, but the cheque bounced. The cheque, return memo and rejected instrument advice are on record (Exhibits E and F).
  • A statutory notice under the Companies Act (sections 433/434) was issued and received by the Corporate Debtor; thereafter a winding-up petition was filed at the Bombay High Court and later transferred in part to this Adjudicating Authority.
  • The Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice in Form 3 under section 8 of the IBC (dated 25.09.2017) in compliance with rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016; the Operational Creditor placed the Demand Notice and postal receipt on record but stated in the rejoinder that the Demand Notice was returned unserved.
  • In its rejoinder, the Operational Creditor denied that the cheques were exchanged due to a change of signature and stated that the quality issue was raised only in respect of one out of 27 consignments and that the issue had been resolved; after the complaint, four more consignments were delivered without objection.

Corporate Debtor's Arguments

  • The Corporate Debtor contended that the goods supplied by the Operational Creditor were defective and not of standard quality — issues communicated by email and phone (email dated 16.01.2014 placed on record as Exhibit-1).
  • The Corporate Debtor asserted that no Demand Notice under section 8 of the IBC had been served, and therefore the present company petition ought not to be treated as an application under section 9 of the IBC.
  • The Corporate Debtor maintained it was not contractually obliged to pay, reiterated the defense relating to defective goods, and described the cheques as security cheques issued by way of a letter dated 08.07.2014. Due to change of signature the Corporate Debtor claimed to have issued stop-payment instructions for the balance cheques and asserted that the cheque dated 03.03.2015 was issued on condition that it would be deposited only if the disputes were resolved. The Corporate Debtor says it requested the Operational Creditor not to deposit the cheque but it was deposited and bounced. Criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were also initiated and pending before the Magistrate, Jodhpur.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal examined the pleadings, documentary evidence and submissions of both parties. The following points of analysis were recorded:

  • Documentary record: The Tribunal referred to the email dated 16.01.2014 (Exhibit-1) from the Corporate Debtor which specifically identified imperfections in "the last batch" of carbon fibre laminates and included snapshots. This indicated that the complaint related to a specific batch.
  • Operational Creditor's response: The Tribunal noted the Operational Creditor's reply of 19.01.2014 (Exhibit-2) explaining manufacturing issues that can result in cut rolls and defective portions, showing an engagement with the complaint.
  • Scope of the quality complaint: From the email and the Operational Creditor's rejoinder (which states the defective quality complaint related to only one out of twenty-seven consignments and that the issue was resolved), the Tribunal concluded that the other consignments were, on the material before it, defect-free. The Tribunal observed that four further consignments were supplied after the complaint, without issue, strengthening the inference that liability could not be denied for the unpaid consignments generally.
  • Cheque as security and statutory presumption: The Tribunal addressed the Corporate Debtor's defence that the cheque was given as a security and subject to stop payment. It applied section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, noting the statutory presumption that a cheque-holder received the cheque for discharge of debt or liability. The Tribunal observed that this presumption is rebuttable but remains unless and until the contrary is proved; the burden of proof to rebut the presumption lies on the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that the defence of the cheque being only a security was not established on the material before it.
  • Completeness of the petition and statutory thresholds: The Tribunal found the petition to be complete in all respects required by law and that the Operational Creditor had demonstrated a debt due and payable and a default in excess of the statutory minimum (more than Rs. 1 lakh under section 4(1) of the IBC).
  • Conclusion from facts and law: On applying the statutory presumption under section 139, considering the documentary record (settlement letter, cheque and its dishonour, statutory notices, emails and further supplies), and finding that the defence on defective goods was limited to one consignment, the Tribunal concluded the default was established and there was no reason to deny admission of the petition under section 9 of the IBC.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition filed under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and ordered initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against R&M International Private Limited.

Implications and operative directions:

  • Moratorium: A moratorium under section 14 of the IBC was imposed from the date of the order until completion of the CIRP, approval of a resolution plan under section 31(1) of the IBC, or an order for liquidation under section 33 — whichever occurs earlier. The moratorium restrains institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, transfer or disposal of assets, actions to enforce security interests (including under SARFAESI), and recovery of property occupied by the Corporate Debtor.
  • Essential supplies: Notwithstanding the moratorium, supplies of essential goods or services, if continuing, shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period.
  • Exceptions: The Tribunal noted that sub-section (1) of section 14 will not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with sectoral regulators.
  • Public announcement: The Operational Creditor/IRP must make a public announcement of the CIRP as specified under section 13 of the IBC read with regulation 6 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
  • Interim Resolution Professional (IRP): The Operational Creditor had not proposed an IRP; the Tribunal directed that the IRP shall be appointed by the Adjudicating Authority by a separate order. The IRP's fees are to comply with applicable IBBI regulations, circulars and directions. The IRP shall perform functions under sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the IBC, and management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP during the CIRP period under section 17.
  • Operational Creditor's deposit: The Operational Creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 with the IRP to meet expenses for issuing public notice and inviting claims; such expenses will be subject to the Committee of Creditors' approval.
  • Obligations of Corporate Debtor officials: Officers and managers of the Corporate Debtor were directed to provide all documents and information to the IRP within one week of receipt of the order, failing which coercive steps would follow.
  • Communications and compliance: The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Operational Creditor, Corporate Debtor and IRP by Speed Post and email within two days. A copy of the order was to be sent to the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, for updating master data; the ROC must send a compliance report to the Registry within seven days of receipt of the order.
  • Precedential effect: The order admits the petition and initiates CIRP on the facts and statutory application before the Tribunal. The opinion does not assert that a new legal precedent was laid; its orders flow from application of statutory provisions (IBC and Negotiable Instruments Act) to the record before the Tribunal.

Order signed by: Ravikumar Duraisamy (Member - Technical) and Rajasekhar V.K. (Member - Judicial). Date of order: 01.01.2020.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Ercon Composites v. R&M International Private Limited

    Per: Rajasekhar V. K., Member (Judicial)

    1. This is a Company Petition filed under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by M/s Ercon Composites (the Operational Creditor), a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Jodhpur, having Reg. No.17-18/234/2004 and represented by its Partner, Mr. Mukul Maheshwari, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against R&M International Private Limited [CIN: U45202MH2009- PTC194919] (the Corporate Debtor).

    2. The Corporate Debtor is a company incorporated on 13.08.2009 under the Companies Act, 1956, as a private company limited by shares with the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai. Its CIN is U45202MH2009PTC194919. At the time of filing of the present petition, the petitioner has mentioned the Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor as: C-2098, Oberoi Garden, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400072. However, as per the MCA web portal, at present, the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is at A-3027, Oberoi Garden Estate, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 072, within the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, this Bench has jurisdiction to deal with the present petition.

    3. The Corporate Debtor is into the business of infrastructure development. Page 3 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017

    4. The present petition was filed before this Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of a sum of 69,76,937/- (Rupees sixty-nine lakh seventy-six thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven only) as principal with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition [as mentioned at page 3 of the petition in Form 5, bearing Diary No.12736/2017].

    5. The case of the Operational Creditor is as follows: - (a) Pursuant to the orders placed by the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor had supplied carbon fibre laminates to the factory of the Corporate Debtor. (b) Both parties exchanged correspondences and thereafter arrived at a settlement on 08.07.2014, whereby the Corporate Debtor wrote a letter to the Operational Creditor stating that they would be clearing the outstanding payment of 79,76,937/- (Rupees seventy-nine lakh seventy-six thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven only) in five instalments as follows: -

    1. On 15.07.2014 : 10,00,000/-

    2. On 30.07.2014 : 15,00,000/-

    3. On 16.08.2014 : 15,00,000/-

    4. On 30.08.2014 : 15,00,000/-

    5. On 15.09.2014 : 24,76,937/- Totalling - : 79,76,937/- Page 4 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 A copy of the said letter dated 08.07.2014 has been placed as Exhibit D at p.26 to the Petition. This letter is on the letterhead of the Corporate Debtor, and duly signed for and on behalf of the Corporate Debtor by its director, Mr Gopal Rai. (c) The respondent Corporate Debtor made payment of the first instalment, i.e., 10,00,000/-. After adjusting the same, there remained a total outstanding of 69,76,937/- due and payable to the Operational Creditor. (d) After follow-up in respect of the remaining instalments, the Corporate Debtor issued a cheque dated 02.03.2015 for the outstanding amount of 69,76,937/- due and payable to the Operational Creditor. A copy of the cheque has been placed as Exhibit E at p.27 to the Petition However, when presented, this cheque bounced. The cheque return memo and the Rejected Instrument Advice have both been placed on record collectively as Exhibit F at pp.28-29 to the Petition. (e) On 23.07.2015, the Operational Creditor issued a Statutory Notice under section 433 read with section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to make the outstanding payment of 69,76,937/- which has been placed on record as Exhibit G at p.29 of the petition. The tracking report placed as Exhibit H at p.30 reveals that the Statutory Notice was received by the Corporate Debtor on 27.07.2015. Page 5 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 (f) Since no payment was forthcoming from the Corporate Debtor in response to the Statutory Notice, the Operational Creditor filed a petition dated 14.10.2015 before the Honble Bombay High Court for winding-up of the Respondent-Corporate Debtor. The extract of the case details from the Honble Bombay High Courts website indicates that the petition filing date is 20.11.2015 and it was registered as CP No.255/2016 on 03.09.2016. The said extract is placed on record as Exhibit 9 at p.56 of the Reply. (g) During the pendency of the winding-up petition before the Honble Bombay High Court, Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued Notification No.GSR.1119(E) dated 07.12.2016, notifying the transfer all proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 relating inter alia to winding-up on the ground of inability to pay debts, to this Adjudicating Authority in terms of rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, which came into effect from 01.04.2017. (h) Accordingly, vide letter No.COM/58/2916 dated 01.02.2017, the Registry of the Honble High Court transferred the present petition to this Adjudicating Authority, and the same was numbered as CP (IB) No.749/2017 before this Adjudicating Authority on 06.07.2019.

    (i) In compliance with rule 5 of the Rules ibid, a Demand Notice dated 25.09.2017 in Form 3 in terms of section 8 of the IBC was issued by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Page 6 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 Debtor. This Demand Notice has been placed on record at pp.75-78 of the Rejoinder. The postal receipt has been placed at p.79 of the Rejoinder. The Operational Creditor has stated in para 8 of its Rejoinder that the Demand Notice was returned unserved.

    6. The Corporate Debtor has filed a reply to the Petition dated 07.03.2019. It has been stated therein that the goods supplied by the Operational Creditor were defective and not of standard quality. The Corporate Debtor had raised issues of inferior quality of goods, which was also duly communicated to the petitioner vide phone calls and email dated 16.01.2014. A copy of the email dated 16.01.2014 has been placed on record as Exhibit-1 at p.39 of the Reply [para 2(b) at p.34 of the Reply].

    7. The Corporate Debtor has further stated that no Demand Notice has been served on the Corporate Debtor, and therefore, the present company petition ought not to be treated as an application under section 9 of the IBC. Further, the Corporate Debtor is not contractually obliged to pay to the Operational Creditor in any manner.

    8. The Corporate Debtor has further stated that it had issued security cheques to the tune of 79,76,937/- vide letter dated 08.07.2014. Thereafter, due to change of signature, it had issued stop payment instructions to the bankers for the balance cheques of 69,76,937/- . When the dispute regarding the quality and price of goods was unresolved, the Operational Creditor confronted the Corporate Page 7 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 Debtor for issuing fresh post-dated cheques as security till the disputes got finally resolved. The Corporate Debtor also issued a cheque for 69,76,937/- dated 03.03.2015 on the condition that it should be deposited only if the disputes get resolved. Even up to the date of the post-dated cheque, the dispute could not be resolved, compelling the Corporate Debtor to request the Operational Creditor not to deposit the cheque. However, the cheque was deposited, which bounced. A statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were also initiated before the Learned Magistrate, Jodhpur. The Corporate Debtor claims to have a fair chance of getting the criminal complaint dismissed in their favour.

    9. The Operational Creditor has filed a rejoinder on 13.12.2018 in the matter. In the Rejoinder, the Operational Creditor has stated that the issue of defective quality of supplies has been raised in only one out of twenty-seven consignments, and that this issue was also resolved. Thereafter, four more consignments were delivered to the Corporate Debtor, who did not raise any issues [Para 3 of the Rejoinder].

    10. In so far as the issue of cheques by the Corporate Debtor is concerned, the Operational Creditor has expressly denied that the cheques issued originally were exchanged for the reason of change of signatures.

    11. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. Page 8 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017

    12. It is noticed from the email dated 16.01.2014 placed as Exhibit-1 at p.39 of the Reply, that the Corporate Debtor has intimated to the Operational Creditor as follows: - Dear Sir, In the last batch of carbon fibre reinforced laminates, several imperfections were found. The snap shots of those have been attached herewith. Kindly make a note of such imperfections and let us know the challenges involved.

    13. The Operational Creditor had replied to the said email dated 16.01.2014 on 19.01.2014 [Exhibit-2 at p.42 of the Reply], wherein it has been stated that during the manufacturing process, many times there are problems that are faced while cutting the strip or defective portion, and thus there may be several cut rolls in one roll.

    14. Since the email dated 16.01.2014 specifically notes that in the last batch of carbon fibre reinforced laminates, several imperfections were found, it can only be taken that the other consignments were defect-free. Further, in the Rejoinder, the Operational Creditor has taken a specific stand that the issue of defective quality of supplies has been raised in only one out of twenty-seven consignments, and that this issue was also resolved. Even if the issue is assumed to be unresolved, this would only cover one consignment, and there is no reason why the other consignments Page 9 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 ought not to be paid for, especially when seen in the context of the specific stand of the Operational Creditor that after the issue raised in the email of 16.01.2014, four more consignments were supplied to the Corporate Debtor.

    15. As regards the cheque stated to have been given as security, this cannot be taken to be a valid defence. In terms of section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. While this is no doubt a rebuttable presumption, the presumption stands unless the contrary is proved. The burden of proof is on the Corporate Debtor.

    16. Therefore, the Petition made by the Operational Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of minimum amount of one lakh rupees stipulated under section 4(1) of the IBC. Therefore, the default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the Petition. In view of this, this Adjudicating Authority admits this Petition and orders initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

    17. The Operational Creditor has not proposed the name of any Interim Resolution Professional.

    18. It is, accordingly, hereby ordered as follows: - Page 10 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 (a) The petition bearing CP(IB)No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 filed by Ercon Composites, the Operational Creditor, under section 9 of the IBC read with rule 6(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against R&M International Private Limited [CIN: U45202MH2009PTC194919], the Corporate Debtor, is admitted. (b) There shall be a moratorium under section 14 of the IBC, in regard to the following:

    (i) 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;

    (ii) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

    (iii) 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 (Sarfaesi) Act, 2002; Page 11 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017

    (iv) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in possession of the Corporate Debtor. (c) Notwithstanding the above, during the period of moratorium,-

    (i) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period;

    (ii) That the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the IBC shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any sectoral regulator; (d) The moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the CIRP or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the IBC or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under section 33 of the IBC, as the case may be. (e) Public announcement of the CIRP shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of the IBC read with regulation 6 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Page 12 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 (f) Since the Operational Creditor has not proposed the name of any Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the matter, the IRP shall be appointed by this Adjudicating Authority by a separate order. The fee payable to IRP or, as the case may be, the RP, shall be compliant with such Regulations, Circulars and Directions as may be issued by the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The IRP shall carry out functions as contemplated by sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the IBC. (g) During the CIRP Period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP or, as the case may be, the RP in terms of section 17 of the IBC. The officers and managers of the Corporate Debtor shall provide all documents in their possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this Order, in default of which coercive steps will follow. (h) The Operational Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one 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 (CoC).

    (i) The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the IRP by Page 13 of 13 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV CP (IB) No.749/MB/C-IV/2017 Speed Post and email immediately, and in any case, not later than two days from the date of this Order. (j) A copy of this Order be sent to the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor. The said Registrar of Companies shall send a compliance report in this regard to the Registry of this Court within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- RAVIKUMAR DURAISAMY RAJASEKHAR V.K. Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) 01.01.2020

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ercon Composites v. R&M International Private Limited
    (Jan 1, 2020)