9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 250 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of dispute or not - HELD THAT - On the similar facts and documents the applicant has filed a case against V.A.M Resorts and hotels Pvt. Ltd. which is registered as CP (IB) No. 353/ALD/2018, in which today the order has been passed and the case has been admitted, moratorium granted and IRP appointed. This Adjudicating Authority is of the considered view that since CP (IB) No. 353/ALD/2018 has already been admitted and moratorium has been granted, hence this petition becomes infructuous. The present petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Issues:
- Application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. - Dispute regarding loan agreement, default in payments, and NPA declaration. - Respondent's objection to maintainability of the petition. - Existence of financial debt and repayment liability. - Similarity with another case CP (IB) No. 353/ALD/2018. - Adjudicating Authority's decision on the application. Analysis: 1. The petition was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the financial creditor, Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., against the corporate debtor, M/s Emm Vee Infrastructures (India) Private Limited, seeking the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 2. The financial creditor, Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., granted a loan to the respondent, M/s Emm Vee Infrastructures Private Limited, which led to a dispute due to alleged irregularities and breach of payment terms, resulting in the loan being declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). 3. The respondent objected to the maintainability of the petition, claiming that the loan was taken by another entity, M/s Sarvhit Trust, and not utilized by the corporate debtor. However, the financial creditor argued that the corporate debtor had executed loan documents and had a proven debt to repay. 4. The Adjudicating Authority noted similarities with another case involving V.A.M Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., where the claim and documents presented were identical to the present case, leading to the conclusion that the current petition had become infructuous due to the admission of the other case. 5. As CP (IB) No. 353/ALD/2018 had already been admitted, moratorium granted, and an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the present petition as infructuous, suggesting the financial creditor address any grievances during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 6. The decision highlighted the importance of consistency and avoidance of duplicity in claims before the tribunal, emphasizing the need for proper grievance redressal within the insolvency resolution framework rather than through separate petitions. 7. Ultimately, the judgment focused on procedural efficiency and the consolidation of similar claims to streamline the insolvency resolution process, ensuring fairness and adherence to the statutory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Conclusion: The judgment dismissed the petition as infructuous due to the admission of a similar case involving the same documents and claims. It underscored the need for procedural coherence and consolidation of claims to facilitate an effective Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
|
