9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1283 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - date of default - main case of the Appellant is that the previous Order of this Tribunal is dated 09.09.2021 whereby and whereunder six months time was granted and the same ended on 09.03.2022 and this date of 09.03.2022 cannot be taken as the Date of Default - HELD THAT - It is seen from the record that there is correspondence dated 14.01.2022 and OTS Letter dated 27.11.2019. Apart from the fact that the issue of Limitation is already answered in the previous Order and has attained finality this Tribunal is of the considered view that it is not the Date of NPA which is 30.09.2015 which is to be taken into consideration keeping in view the facts of the attendant case but rather it is the Date of Default which is six months subsequent to the time given by this Tribunal in the Order dated 09.09.2021 that is to be considered. This Tribunal does not have any Equity Jurisdiction and also conscious and alive to the candid fact that more than sufficient/ ample time was extended to the Corporate Debtor. Besides that the Debt and Default are clearly demarcated in Para-IV of the Section 7 Application of the I B Code 2016 in CP (IBC) 46/KOB/2022 and the available material on record establishes the same. Viewed in that perspective this Tribunal does not find any ground much less a valid ground to interfere in the well considered and reasoned order of the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include challenging the Order of Admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the viability of the Project Act BEKAL, the delay in Sanctioning and Disbursal of Additional Loans, the date of default, and the application of the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Code. Challenging Order of Admission under Section 7 of the Code: The Appellant, a Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, challenged the Order of Admission passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant argued that the Corporate Debtor, a Special Purpose Vehicle for the Project Act BEKAL, had made significant investments and was viable only if all debts were cleared and investments made. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority's admission of the Section 7 Application was unjustified, considering the viability of the Project and the pandemic situation. Viability of Project Act BEKAL and Delay in Sanctioning of Loans: The Appellant highlighted that the Corporate Debtor faced financial costs due to changes in design and delays in Sanctioning and Disbursal of Additional Loans, leading to increased interest payments. The Appellant argued that the Project's viability was affected by these factors, and the Corporate Debtor had been servicing interest until mid-2017. The Appellant emphasized the substantial investments made by the promoters and the need to clear debts for the Project's success. Date of Default and Application of Limitation Act: The Respondent argued that as long as there is a debt and default, there is no Equity Jurisdiction for the Adjudicating Authority to consider. The Tribunal referred to the Laxmi Pat Surana case judgment, emphasizing the application of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the Code. The Tribunal considered correspondence and previous orders regarding the Date of Default and the Date of NPA, concluding that the Section 7 Application was not time-barred. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that ample time had been given to the Corporate Debtor, and there were no valid grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order.
|
