9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1660 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - inability of Corporate Debtor to liquidate its financial debt - Financial creditors - NPA - pendency of alternate proceeding under SARFEASI - existence of debt and dispute or not - barred by time limitation - HELD THAT - The Corporate Debtor vide its letter dated 12.12.2018 approached the Financial Creditor for one time settlement of an amount of Rs. 15 Crore, thereby admitting its default, there is a finding that there is a continuous cause of action. As per the averments of the petition no payment has been made by the Corporate Debtor after the default occurred in June, 2015 and as on date 27.11.2018, an amount of Rs. 46,63,35,337.31/- is due and outstanding. The present petition being filed in January 2019 is within limitation, being within three years from the date of the cause of action. Further even though an attempt was made on the part of the Corporate debtor to project certain inconsistencies in relation to claim amounts, however it is seen that the amount in default in excess of Rs 1,00,000/- being the minimum threshold limit fixed under IBC, 2016. Considering the circumstances this Tribunal is inclined to admit this petition and initiate CIRP of the Respondent. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
Issues:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Compliance with statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 3. Validity of the one-time settlement offer by the Corporate Debtor. 4. Claim amount and limitation period under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 5. Appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Analysis: 1. The petition was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to the Corporate Debtor's inability to repay its financial debt. The account was declared NPA in 2015, and subsequent actions were taken by the Financial Creditor to recover the dues, leading to the present petition. 2. A judgment by the DRT Lucknow highlighted non-compliance by the respondent bank with statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, resulting in the setting aside of actions initiated under the Act. The possession of secured assets was directed to be handed over to the applicant, with the possibility for the Financial Institution to proceed afresh under the SARFAESI Act. 3. The Corporate Debtor made a one-time settlement offer in December 2018, admitting default and indicating a continuous cause of action. This offer was considered in the context of the total outstanding amount due, which was found to be within the limitation period for filing the petition under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. 4. The petition detailed the outstanding amount due from the Corporate Debtor, with no payments made post-default. The petition was filed within the limitation period, and inconsistencies raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding claim amounts did not impact the minimum threshold limit fixed under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal admitted the petition and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 5. The Financial Creditor proposed the appointment of Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), whose consent and details were provided. The Tribunal confirmed his appointment and directed him to take necessary steps under the statute, specifically in compliance with relevant sections of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The judgment imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, listed the actions restricted during this period, and instructed the IRP to proceed with the resolution process. The case was renotified for the IRP's report, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
|
