Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (12) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (12) TMI 417 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
2. Nature of the amount claimed by the Financial Creditors - whether it is a loan or an investment.
3. Whether the amount claimed by the Financial Creditors has been discharged.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in light of the pending Civil Suit before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
5. Existence of default in repayment of the financial debt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC):
The Corporate Debtor challenged the maintainability of the application, arguing that the amounts advanced were investments rather than loans, and that there was no written agreement or contract specifying the terms of repayment or interest. The Tribunal, however, found that the amounts claimed by the Financial Creditors were disbursed as loans, evidenced by TDS certificates and ledger accounts, and thus the application was maintainable under Section 7 of the IBC.

2. Nature of the Amount Claimed by the Financial Creditors - Loan or Investment:
The Tribunal examined the TDS certificates (Form 26AS) submitted by the Financial Creditors, which showed that TDS was deducted under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act for interest payments. This indicated that the amounts were loans, not investments, as TDS under Section 194A pertains to interest on loans rather than profit distribution. The Tribunal concluded that the amounts advanced by the Financial Creditors were loans.

3. Whether the Amount Claimed by the Financial Creditors has been Discharged:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the amounts claimed had been discharged through the transfer of shares to the Financial Creditors. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the alleged fraud regarding the share transfer was still under adjudication in the pending Civil Suit before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the amount claimed had not been discharged and was still outstanding.

4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in Light of the Pending Civil Suit:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the pending Civil Suit before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which involved allegations of fraud by the Financial Creditors. The Tribunal determined that the issues in the Civil Suit were unrelated to the financial debt in question and did not affect its jurisdiction to adjudicate the insolvency petition. The Tribunal emphasized that the pending dispute did not preclude the admission of the petition under Section 7 of the IBC.

5. Existence of Default in Repayment of the Financial Debt:
The Tribunal found that the Financial Creditors had not received any repayment after 31.08.2016, establishing a default as defined under Section 3(12) of the IBC. The Tribunal also noted that the Financial Creditors had completed all procedural requirements for the application. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in "Innovative Industries v. ICICI Bank," which clarified that the existence of a dispute does not prevent the admission of a Section 7 petition if the debt is due and payable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the amounts claimed by the Financial Creditors were financial debts as defined under Section 5(8) of the IBC and that there was a default in repayment. Consequently, the petition was admitted, and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated. The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and declared a moratorium as per Section 14 of the IBC. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Corporate Debtor was dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates