R. Varadharajan, Member - (1.) Since the above four Petitions relate to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) however, filed by different applicants, one of the applicant being the Corporate Debtor itself, and in view of the commonality of the issue involved, namely initiation of CIRP, a common order is passed in relation to the above four petitions. While the Corporate Debtor has filed its application for initiating the CIRP vide Application No. IB-130(PB)/2017 under Section 10 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the other three applications have been filed under Section 9 of IBC, 2016, by persons who claim to be its Operational Creditors on the basis that each of them have supplied goods for value and the payment of consideration in relation to the same are in default.
(2.) All the four applications, even though as stated earlier, relate to the initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, the maintainability and merits of the applications as filed by the Operational Creditors are taken first in order to ascertain as to whether the applications are sustainable in light of the provisions of IBC, 2016, in preference to that filed by the Corporate Debtor itself.
(3.) It is to be noted that IBC, 2016 even though contains a waterfall in respect of liquidation process, however in relation to initiation of CIRP by more than one category of applicant (i.e.) Financial Creditor, Operational Creditor or Corporate Debtor and as to which one of the application is required to be taken first or preference given, has not been specified, for its disposal. However, NCLT being named as an Adjudicating Authority under IBC, 2016 and being a Court of Equity and this Tribunal in the absence of a petition filed by any Financial Creditor seeking for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, considers it appropriate to take up the Petitions as filed by the Operational Creditors, before taking up the petition filed by the Corporate Debtor itself, as it avoids any semblance of unfairness and lack of transparency that may be alleged on the part of Insolvency Resolution Professional named by the Corporate Debtor itself by other stakeholders, in case of admission.;