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 - 2020 (3) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (3) TMI 1350 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues Involved:
1. Triggering the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
2. Status and role of the Petitioner as a Financial Creditor
3. Default and classification of debt as Non-Performing Asset (NPA)
4. One-Time Settlement (OTS) and its implications
5. Proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)
6. Limitation period for filing the Insolvency Petition
7. Validity of the transfer/assignment deed
8. Computation of the debt amount
9. Declaration of moratorium and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)

Detailed Analysis:

1. Triggering the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):
The Petitioner, M/s. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), filed an I.B. Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Hotline Glass Limited. The petition was filed to recover outstanding dues amounting to ?600,10,01,165 as on 01.12.2018.

2. Status and Role of the Petitioner as a Financial Creditor:
SASF, constituted by the Government of India, is recognized as a Financial Institution under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Petitioner claims its status as a Financial Creditor based on these provisions and a Central Government Notification dated 29.09.2004.

3. Default and Classification of Debt as Non-Performing Asset (NPA):
The Respondent, M/s. Hotline Glass Limited, defaulted on the payment of interest and loan installments, leading to the classification of its loan account as an NPA on 01.01.2008. A statutory notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 17.06.2008, demanding ?56,14,70,352.

4. One-Time Settlement (OTS) and Its Implications:
The Petitioner offered an OTS to the Respondent for ?3011 Lakhs on 20.04.2005, which the Respondent failed to comply with, resulting in the revocation of the settlement on 17.08.2006. The Respondent's subsequent attempts to settle the dues through the sale of surplus land were unsuccessful.

5. Proceedings Before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR):
The Respondent filed a reference before the BIFR in February 2007 under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), which was registered as Case No. 20/2007. The BIFR proceedings continued until SICA was repealed on 01.12.2016. The period spent in BIFR proceedings was excluded from the limitation period for filing the present petition.

6. Limitation Period for Filing the Insolvency Petition:
The crucial issue of limitation was addressed, considering the date of default (01.01.2008) and the subsequent OTS proposal. The Petitioner argued that the right to sue accrued from 01.12.2016, the date SICA was repealed. The present petition was filed on 10.01.2019, within the three-year limitation period after excluding the time spent in BIFR proceedings.

7. Validity of the Transfer/Assignment Deed:
The Respondent challenged the legality and validity of the transfer/assignment deed executed by IDBI in favor of SASF. The Petitioner countered that the deed was duly executed, signed, and registered with the appropriate authorities, making it enforceable.

8. Computation of the Debt Amount:
The Petitioner clarified that the financial assistance was restructured into non-convertible debentures (NCDs) of ?31.71 Crores, with interest and penalties accruing to ?563,39,01,165 over 17 years, totaling ?600,10,01,165. The computation was based on the terms of the sanction letter accepted by the Respondent.

9. Declaration of Moratorium and Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Tribunal admitted the petition, declared a moratorium under Section 13(1)(a) of the IBC, and appointed Mr. Jigar Pradipchandra Shah as the Interim Resolution Professional. The moratorium prohibits suits, asset transfers, and recovery actions against the Corporate Debtor, ensuring the supply of essential goods and services continues.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the I.B. Petition filed by SASF, triggering the CIRP against M/s. Hotline Glass Limited. The period spent in BIFR proceedings was excluded from the limitation period, and the petition was deemed filed within the prescribed time. The moratorium was declared, and an IRP was appointed to oversee the resolution process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a viable resolution plan considering the competitive market conditions and interest rates.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates