2019 (4) TMI 1012 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Corporate Debtor - default in repayment of loan amount - section 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code - HELD THAT - Had there been an intention to the Corporate Debtor to settle this claim amount through OTS, the Debtor company would have responded to the letter dated 20.06.2017 but whereas there is no material reflecting that this Corporate Debtor made any efforts to resolve this issue through OTS despite more than one and half years is over from the date the Creditor Bank sent a letter asking the Corporate Debtor to provide full information as aforesaid - By looking at the conduct of the Corporate Debtor, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor made an attempt to set up these letters filed by the creditor bank as defence to impress upon this Bench that the debtor made efforts for one time settlement, but on record no material is there to prove that the Corporate Debtor pursued OTS proposal any time thereafter. The submissions made by the Corporate Debtor are misconceived and for trying to drag out this matter on one or the other pretext. There is a liability is subsisting against the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has already defaulted in repaying the liability, therefore, and thus it is a fit case for admission - application admitted - moratorium also declared.

Summary

Issues:
1. Default in repayment by the Corporate Debtor leading to a Company Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.
2. Defence raised by the Corporate Debtor on the ground of limitation and debt claim being barred.
3. Arguments regarding acknowledgement of debt and limitation under Section 18 of The Limitation Act.
4. Dispute over the Corporate Debtor's attempt for a one-time settlement proposal.
5. Decision on the admission of the petition and declaration of moratorium.

Analysis:
1. The Company Petition was filed by the Creditor Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code due to the Corporate Debtor's default in repaying an amount of ?183,75,51,582 as on 01.10.2018 against various credit facilities availed. The Creditor Bank provided evidence of debt and default occurrences through dates and events, leading to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

2. The Corporate Debtor raised a defence on the ground of limitation, arguing that the petition was filed after the completion of three years from the date of default. The Creditor Bank countered this by citing the Recall Notice sent on 13.11.2015, within the three-year period, and other instances of debt acknowledgment, as per Section 18 of The Limitation Act.

3. The arguments revolved around the acknowledgment of debt and limitation under Section 18 of The Limitation Act. The Creditor Bank relied on legal precedents to support the acknowledgment of debt through various means, while the Corporate Debtor failed to provide evidence that the debt was not reflected in its books.

4. A dispute arose regarding the Corporate Debtor's attempt for a one-time settlement proposal, with the Creditor Bank highlighting the lack of response and effort from the Corporate Debtor to provide necessary details for the proposal. The Corporate Debtor's defense based on these letters was deemed insufficient due to the lack of material proof of pursuing the one-time settlement.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, found the liability to be subsisting against the Corporate Debtor and declared the petition fit for admission. A moratorium was declared with specific directions, including the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The decision was made based on the material furnished by the Financial Creditor and the lack of merit in the Corporate Debtor's arguments, ultimately leading to the admission of the petition and initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.