Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 790 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - The application is filed by Assistant General Manager and Principal Officer of the bank. He is authorized through General Power of Attorney issued on 27.09.2011. The General Power of Attorney is valid and in force. It is also stated by the counsel for the Applicant that the officer of the bank has been authorized to grant loan, recovery of the loan, to initiate the proceedings of CIRP against the person who has defaulted. In such case, the Corporate Debtor cannot plead that officer has power to sanction loan but such officer has no power to recover the loan amount or initiate corporate insolvency resolution process inspite of default by the Corporate Debtor - the Power of Attorney authorised Shri Shashi Bushan Prasad Singh Asst. General Manager to grant loan, recover loan and to apply for insolvency proceedings. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The petition is filed on 22.10.2018 and the date of default is 01.07.2015. In this regard, it is noted that the last entry (credit) in loan A/c. is on 30-12-2015 (page No. 922of the application). Hence, the present IB Petition filed on 22.10.2018 is well within the period of limitation. This Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor in repayment of loan amount to the Bank. The petition is complete. As a consequence, the instant petition is admitted in terms of Section 7 of the IB Code and the moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) of IB Code. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues involved:
Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a company by a financial creditor, objections raised by the respondent company regarding the authority of the petitioner, contention on the limitation period for filing the petition, appointment of an Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional. Analysis: 1. Initiation of CIRP under Section 7: The judgment details the filing of a petition by the Assistant General Manager of Central Bank of India under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the respondent company, Silver Proteins Private Limited. The petitioner sought to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process due to defaults in repayment by the respondent. 2. Objections on Petitioner's Authority: The respondent company contested the authority of the petitioner, claiming that the application was filed without proper authorization. However, the petitioner provided documentation, including a General Power of Attorney, to establish the authority of the Assistant General Manager to file the insolvency petition, as per the observations of previous judgments by the NCLAT. 3. Contestation on Limitation Period: The respondent alleged that the petition was barred by limitation, arguing that the default date and the filing date of the petition did not align. The judgment clarified that the petition was filed within the limitation period, considering the last entry in the loan account, thus rendering the petition maintainable. 4. Appointment of Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional: The judgment appointed Mr. Shalabh Kumar Daga as the Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional to oversee the insolvency resolution process of the respondent company. This appointment was made in accordance with Section 13(l)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In conclusion, the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, admitted the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, appointed an Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional, and imposed a moratorium on certain actions against the respondent company. The judgment addressed the issues of authority, limitation, and procedural requirements in initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process comprehensively.
|