9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 537 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Held that - It is not the case of the Appellant- Mr. Aditya Kumar Jajodia that they do not owe any debt to the Financial Creditor or there is no default. The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied that a default has occurred admitted the application which was complete. Another ground taken by the Appellant is that the Form 7 was not signed by the authorised person. However, we are not inclined to set aside the impugned order on such ground as the application under Section 7 (in Form-1) was filed by the authorised employees of the Financial Creditor .
Issues involved:
1. Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 2. Challenge to the impugned order by a Shareholder and Director of the Company. 3. Acceptance of the application under Section 7 despite proceedings under other financial laws. 4. Discrepancy in the claim amount filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code. 5. Validity of the impugned order based on incorrect claim amount. 6. Authorization of the application under Section 7 by the Financial Creditor. 7. Authority of the Adjudicating Authority to decide on claim amount. Analysis: Issue 1: Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code The Financial Creditor filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application, imposed a moratorium, and appointed a Resolution Professional. Issue 2: Challenge to the impugned order A Shareholder and Director of the Company challenged the impugned order, arguing that actions were already taken under other financial laws like the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act and the SARFAESI Act. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that such actions do not render the application under the I&B Code invalid. Issue 3: Acceptance of the application despite other proceedings The Appellate Tribunal cited a previous judgment to emphasize that actions under other financial laws do not preclude the acceptance of an application under the I&B Code. The provisions of the I&B Code override inconsistent laws, ensuring the application's validity. Issue 4: Discrepancy in the claim amount The Appellant raised concerns about a mismatch in the claim amount filed under the I&B Code. The Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous case where incorrect claims and hasty applications were deemed impermissible, emphasizing the importance of accurate claims in insolvency proceedings. Issue 5: Validity of the impugned order based on incorrect claim amount The Appellate Tribunal rejected the Appellant's arguments regarding the incorrect claim amount, stating that the application was complete and the Adjudicating Authority was justified in admitting it. Issue 6: Authorization of the application by the Financial Creditor The Appellant questioned the authorization of the application under Section 7, alleging that Form 7 was not signed by the authorized person. However, the Tribunal upheld the application's validity as it was filed by authorized employees of the Financial Creditor. Issue 7: Authority of the Adjudicating Authority to decide on claim amount In a separate appeal, the Allahabad Bank challenged the Adjudicating Authority's decision to determine the claim amount, arguing that it should be decided by the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the paragraph concerning the claim amount while affirming the rest of the order. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals challenging the impugned order under Section 7 of the I&B Code but allowed the appeal concerning the determination of the claim amount by the Adjudicating Authority.
|
