9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 959 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyRejection of Section 7 Application - rejection on the ground that ledger and the bank statement do not tally - discrepancies between the Bank Statement and the Ledger Account, exists or not - existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT - Section 7 Application was filed by the Financial Creditor with the case that loan was given to the Corporate Debtor for an amount of Rs. 9.41 crores out of which Rs. 5.12 Crores was paid in the year 2013-14 and the amount of Rs. 4.29 was pending. In the Part-IV of the Section 7 Application, the said amount was claimed on the basis of which the CIRP was sought to be initiated. The observation of the Adjudicating Authority that amount of Rs. 4.10 lac was received from Harvansh and not from the Corporate Debtor is not a correct observation. The Bank Statement has been placed on record by the Corporate Debtor which indicate that on 24th August, 2015 by transfer Rs. 4.10 Lac was received by the Financial Creditor and on the same day the said amount of Rs. 4.10 Lac was transferred to one Mr. Harvansh. The two entries are separate entries in the Bank Statement and tallies with the Ledger Account which indicate that Rs. 4.10 Lac was credited in the Account of the Financial Creditor. Thus the basis of the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting Section 7 Application is unfounded. Debt and Default being admitted, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have admitted Section 7 Application in view of the law laid down in M/S. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS ICICI BANK ANR. 2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT . The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
The appeal against the rejection of a Section 7 Application by the Adjudicating Authority. Details of the Judgment: The Appellant filed documents to prove the disbursement of a loan and the outstanding balance. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application citing discrepancies between the ledger and bank statement, but the Corporate Debtor admitted the pending amount. The Respondent argued financial difficulties for non-payment, but partial repayments were made. The Section 7 Application was based on the loan amount and pending balance, seeking initiation of CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the bank statement and ledger did not match, the debt was not disbursed as per the loan agreement, and eligibility issues under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the observation about a payment received from someone other than the Corporate Debtor was incorrect. A settlement agreement, not a loan agreement, was in place for the pending dues. The Corporate Debtor's reply admitted the debt and default, aligning with legal precedent. Considering the discrepancies and admissions, the Adjudicating Authority's rejection was deemed unsustainable in law. The order was set aside, directing admission of the Section 7 Application within 30 days for further proceedings. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
|
