9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1525 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate debtor failed to make repayment of its dues/loan - existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT - The Financial Creditor-Bank has succeeded to establish a case for triggering the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Financial Creditor has placed various documents in relation to the disbursement of different kinds of loan to the Respondent Company. The materials on record and the loan documents clearly depicts that the loan was sanctioned disbursed and the loan agreements were properly executed. Respondent company utilized and enjoyed the loan facilities. Apart the other documents the Financial Creditor has relied upon the letters of respondent company confirming creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds in order to secure the loan - In addition the Financial Creditor has filed the relevant statement of accounts duly certified in accordance with Banker s Book Evidence Act 1891 as per the requirement of Form 1 Part V Column 7 of the application. A true copy of statement of accounts submitted by the Financial Creditor pertaining to various loan facilities kept during the course of banking business basing on which the claim has been raised can be termed as sufficient evidence of the financial debt. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Opposition by the Corporate Debtor regarding the admission of the petition. 3. Fulfillment of requirements under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 4. Declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 5. Public announcement and deposit of expenses by the Financial Creditor. 6. General complaint against Financial Creditors regarding interest rates and discrepancies in accounts. Detailed Analysis: 1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP): The 'Financial Creditor', Punjab National Bank, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/S. Beta Infratech Private Limited. The Corporate Debtor is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and has availed various credit facilities from the Petitioner-Bank amounting to ?3,457,087,024/- Crores. The Financial Creditor proposed Mr. S. V. Satyanarayana as the Resolution Professional, who satisfied the requirements of Rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. Opposition by the Corporate Debtor: The Corporate Debtor opposed the petition on several grounds: (i) The amounts claimed by the Financial Creditor are yet to be ascertained, with proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. (ii) Disputes exist due to the alleged default by the Financial Creditor and other lenders, causing a loss of over ?1000 crores to the Respondent. (iii) The purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not to liquidate the company but to reorganize and resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner. (iv) The assets mortgaged to the Financial Creditor are of high value, securing the dues. (v) Allegations of malafide actions and dereliction of duty by financial institutions. 3. Fulfillment of Requirements under Section 7: The tribunal found that the Financial Creditor successfully established a case for triggering the CIRP. The Financial Creditor provided various documents, including loan agreements, statements of accounts certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891, and letters confirming the creation of mortgages. The tribunal noted that a certified copy of entries in a banker’s books is prima facie evidence of financial debt. The tribunal emphasized that the purpose of the Code is to resolve insolvency and restore the corporate debtor to financial stability, not to liquidate it. The tribunal also rejected the argument of forum shopping, stating that the pendency of proceedings before the DRT-II, Hyderabad, does not bar the initiation of CIRP. 4. Declaration of Moratorium: The tribunal declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, specifying that it does not apply to transactions notified by the Central Government and essential supplies like water and electricity, as per Regulation 32 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. 5. Public Announcement and Deposit of Expenses: In accordance with Section 13(2) of the Code, the tribunal directed the Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional to make a public announcement regarding the admission of the application within three days. The Financial Creditor was directed to deposit ?2 lacs with the Interim Resolution Professional to cover expenses, subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors. 6. General Complaint Against Financial Creditors: The tribunal acknowledged general complaints against Financial Creditors, Banks, NBFCs, and Asset Reconstruction Companies regarding exorbitant interest rates and discrepancies in accounts. However, it clarified that it could not determine the amount due and suggested that the Resolution Professional might address such issues if necessary. Conclusion: The petition was admitted, and Mr. S. V. Satyanarayana was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. The tribunal directed the office to communicate the order to relevant parties and update the status of the Corporate Debtor on the Registrar of Companies' website.
|
