Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1431 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApplication under Section 7 of IBC not in the form prescribed under IBC - application rejected as defective for want of certification and verification of the averments made - agreement not admissible evidence as it was not property stamped - HELD THAT - In the present matter, the Corporate Debtor s account became NPA on 31st May, 2016, is not in dispute. If the Appellant has grievance that the calculations made with regard to the amount outstanding is not correct as per the record, then documents of same can be looked into by the Resolution Professional in CIRP. As far as the admission of the Application is concerned, question required to be considered by Adjudicating Authority, was to see if financial debt was due and if default was of Rupees One Lakh. If the Application is otherwise complete, the Application is required to be admitted. In Judgement in the matter of M/S. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS ICICI BANK ANR. 2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that The later non-obstante clause of the Parliamentary enactment will also prevail over the limited non-obstante clause contained in Section 4 of the Maharashtra Act. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Maharashtra Act cannot stand in the way of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Code. There are no error on the part of Adjudicating Authority. For such reasons, it is found that there are no substance in the submissions being made on behalf of the Appellant - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
- Validity of the Application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Compliance with requirements under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 - Certification and verification of averments in the Application - Admissibility of evidence regarding the Agreement dated 11th February, 2015 - Disputed amounts and calculations in the Application - Admittance of the Application by the Adjudicating Authority Analysis: 1. Validity of the Application under Section 7 of IBC: The Appellant contested the validity of the Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, raising concerns about the form, certification, and verification of the Application. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that the Petitioner Bank had submitted the necessary documents executed by the Corporate Debtor and Guarantors, along with a Certificate under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891, supporting their petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Authority also noted the default in repayment by the Corporate Debtor, confirming the debt due and defaulted, leading to the admission of the Application. 2. Compliance with Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891: The Petitioner Bank provided documents supported by a Certificate under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891, establishing the debt due and defaulted by the Corporate Debtor. This compliance played a crucial role in the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the Application under Section 7 of the IBC. 3. Certification and Verification of Averments: The Appellant argued that the Application should have been rejected as defective due to the lack of certification and verification of the averments made. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that the Petitioner Bank had submitted the necessary documents, including a Certificate under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891, which supported the claims made in the Application. 4. Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Agreement: The Appellant raised concerns about the admissibility of evidence related to the Agreement dated 11th February, 2015, stating that it was not property stamped. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not find any error in admitting the Application based on the evidence presented by the Petitioner Bank. 5. Disputed Amounts and Calculations in the Application: The Appellant pointed out discrepancies in the calculations and amounts reflected in the Application under Section 7 of the IBC. However, the Adjudicating Authority emphasized that if the financial debt due and default amount to more than Rs.1 Lakh, the Application is required to be admitted, as per the provisions of the IBC. 6. Admittance of the Application by the Adjudicating Authority: The Adjudicating Authority, considering the evidence and submissions made, found no error in admitting the Application under Section 7 of the IBC. Referring to relevant judgments, the Authority highlighted that the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority is based on specific criteria outlined in the IBC, including the existence of a financial debt exceeding Rs.1 Lakh and a default. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed, with no orders as to costs. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to admit the Application under Section 7 of the IBC, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements and the threshold for financial debt and default as outlined in the Code.
|