2025 (1) TMI 953 - AT - IBC

Admission of Section 7 Application filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor (CD) - pledged shares were sufficient to cover the debt owed by the CD to the Financial Creditor or not - HELD THAT - The findings recorded by Adjudicating Authority with regard to debt are not even questioned. The case setup by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority as well as before this Tribunal to settle the matter and discharge its liability itself indicate that there was a debt and default. In paragraph 6.13 the Adjudicating Authority has noticed the amount released by sale of pledged shares and it was found that amount of Rs.2, 05, 54, 296 is still due and payable. The submission of the Appellant is that had the shares been transferred on the date when shares were pledged the Financial Creditor would have obtained amount of Rs.6 crores sufficient to clear the claim cannot be accepted. Under the MoU it was the sole discretion of Financial Creditor to invoke the shares and pledge invocation was noticed on 29.11.2022 and thereafter shares were realized and the amount which was realized by the sale of shares have been noticed which did not discharge the debt of the Financial Creditor. The fact that CD has taken steps to settle the dues before the Adjudicating Authority as well as this Tribunal itself indicate that both debt is there and default is an admitted fact. Conclusion - The debt and default having been proved there are no error in initiating the CIRP against the CD. There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order in the present Appeal - appeal dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was correct in admitting the Section 7 Application filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor (CD).
Whether the pledged shares were sufficient to cover the debt owed by the CD to the Financial Creditor and whether the Financial Creditor acted appropriately in invoking and selling the pledged shares.
Whether the existence of debt and default was adequately established to justify the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the CD.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal should interfere with the order of the NCLT considering the subsequent negotiations and partial payments made by the Appellant.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Admission of Section 7 Application

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The application was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which allows a financial creditor to initiate CIRP against a corporate debtor upon default.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Financial Creditor had provided sufficient evidence of both the existence of a financial debt and the occurrence of default, as required under the Code.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the Sanction Letter, Master Facility Agreement, Personal Guarantee Deed, Demand Promissory Note, and the Loan Recall Notice as evidence of debt. The Record of Default with NeSL further confirmed the default.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that the criteria for admitting a Section 7 Application were met, as there was clear evidence of debt and default.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant argued that the debt was settled through pledged shares, but the Tribunal found that the sale of shares did not satisfy the entire debt.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's decision to admit the Section 7 Application.

Issue 2: Sufficiency and Sale of Pledged Shares

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The MoU and Share Pledge Agreement governed the rights and obligations regarding the pledged shares.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Financial Creditor had the discretion to invoke the shares and that the realized value from the sale was insufficient to cover the debt.
Key evidence and findings: The Financial Creditor realized Rs.1,94,10,790.14 from the sale, with a balance value of Rs.47,58,767.86, which did not satisfy the debt.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the Financial Creditor acted within its rights under the MoU and that the shortfall in covering the debt justified the continuation of CIRP.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant's claim that the shares could have covered the debt if sold earlier was dismissed, as the timing of sale was at the Financial Creditor's discretion.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the sale of shares did not discharge the debt, supporting the admission of the Section 7 Application.

Issue 3: Existence of Debt and Default

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The existence of debt and default is a prerequisite for initiating CIRP under Section 7 of the Code.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Appellant's actions and admissions during proceedings indicated the existence of debt and default.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal referenced financial statements and NeSL records confirming the debt and default.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal standards for establishing debt and default, affirming the NCLT's findings.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's attempts to dispute the default, noting the lack of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the finding of debt and default, justifying the initiation of CIRP.

Issue 4: Subsequent Negotiations and Partial Payments

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The possibility of settlement and withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12-A of the Code.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that despite opportunities, no settlement was finalized, and partial payments did not discharge the debt.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant's efforts to negotiate but found them insufficient to alter the course of CIRP.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized the need for a complete settlement to consider withdrawal under Section 12-A.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered but ultimately rejected the Appellant's argument for interference based on partial payments.
Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, allowing CIRP to proceed unless a full settlement is reached.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The debt and default having been proved, we do not find any error in initiating the CIRP against the CD."
Core principles established: The existence of debt and default is critical for admitting a Section 7 Application, and partial payments or negotiations do not negate established defaults unless a full settlement is reached.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal affirmed the NCLT's decision to admit the Section 7 Application, upheld the sufficiency of evidence for debt and default, and dismissed the appeal while allowing for potential settlement under Section 12-A.

← Previous Next →