2023 (5) TMI 141 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Initiation of CIRP - NCLT admitted the application - NPA - charging exorbitant interest rate @13% against the stipulated rates of RBI - instead of charging interest on annual basis, the Respondent No. 1 charge interest on monthly basis - huge margin money - The Appellant denied that there was any default on 31.12.2013, however for argument s sake, even it is presumed that default occurred on 31.12.2013 as claimed by the Respondent No. 1 , loan account was renewed on 25.02.2014, hence there could not be any default. The Appellant further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 relied upon Balance-Sheets for the Financial Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, whereas the Appellant has not accepted the outstanding dues but merely stipulated the credit facilities obtained. HELD THAT - From reading Section 7 of the Code, it is therefore clear that it lays down the procedure for initiation of the CIRP by a Financial Creditor who can file an application before the Adjudicating Authority along with proof of default and name of Resolution Professional proposed to act as Interim Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority is required to ascertain the existence of default within 14 days from the date of receipt of the application. It is further noted that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied regarding existence of default and that the application is complete and no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority is required to admit the application and is not required to look into any other criteria for the admission of the application. It is nobody s case to cause delay in admission of CIRP on miscellaneous grounds. This Appellate Tribunal also notes that the Hon ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Appellate Tribunal itself has, held in catena of judgments that there is no scope for judicial interventions and over reach by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to interpret any further, if the existence of due and subsequent default is established. In view of these provisions, the plea of the Appellant regarding violation of the RBI Guidelines on Priority Sector Landing cannot be allowed to affect the fate of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code. It is for the Appellant to seek necessary remedies, if any and if required against the Respondent No. 1 for violation of Master Circular of RBI regarding Priority Sector Landing at appropriate forum in accordance with the law. Hence, on this account we do not find any error in the impugned order. As regards, the debiting the amount by the Respondent No. 1 from the cash credit and adjusted towards term loan without consent of the Appellant, this Appellate Tribunal notes that this is matter of execution and monitoring of various credit facilities between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor and the same is supposed to be done as per extent banking practices. Hence, this plea in no way effects the outcome of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code. This Appellate Tribunal do not find any error in the impugned order. This Appellate Tribunal is also conscious of the fact that the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a self-contained Code and its proceeding are summary in nature - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged delay and reduction in loan sanction.
2. Violation of RBI guidelines.
3. Default and classification as NPA.
4. Pending suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
5. Unauthorized debiting of account.

Summary:

1. Alleged delay and reduction in loan sanction:
The Appellant argued that the Respondent No. 1 delayed the loan sanction and reduced the amount from Rs. 6.98 crores to Rs. 4.48 crores, which adversely impacted the business of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant had to borrow from the market due to this delay, affecting the project's viability.

2. Violation of RBI guidelines:
The Appellant claimed that the Respondent No. 1 violated RBI guidelines by charging an interest rate of 13% per annum instead of the stipulated rate, charging interest on a monthly basis instead of annually, and keeping a high margin. The Appellant argued that these violations should prevent the Respondent No. 1 from proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

3. Default and classification as NPA:
The Appellant contended that there was no default on 31.12.2013, and even if presumed, the loan account was renewed on 25.02.2014. They also argued that the balance sheets merely stipulated the credit facilities and did not acknowledge the debt. The Respondent No. 1, however, provided evidence of default and classification of the account as NPA on 31.03.2014, which was accepted by the Adjudicating Authority.

4. Pending suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal:
The Appellant mentioned a pending recovery suit under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that such pending adjudication does not affect the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC.

5. Unauthorized debiting of account:
The Appellant alleged that the Respondent No. 1 debited Rs. 30 lakhs from the cash credit account without consent. The Tribunal noted that this issue pertains to the execution and monitoring of credit facilities and does not affect the application under Section 7 of the IBC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the IBC. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal emphasized that the IBC proceedings are summary in nature and self-contained.