9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 486 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - whether the Corporate Debtor is liable to repay the monies back under the Harvesting and Transportation Loan? - Whether the IRP/Respondent was correct in rejecting the claim of the Applicant as Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT - This Bench is of the considered opinion that the sanction letter dated 29.03.2017 issued by the applicant bank demonstrates that the loan is disbursed at the behest of the Corporate Debtor and that there is undertaking by the Corporate Debtor to repay the amounts due under the said loan to the applicant. It was expressly agreed by the Corporate Debtor that the H T Contractors who have executed agreement for harvesting and the transportation works, they will provide sufficient work for harvesting and the transportation and the sugar factory shall deduct the amounts of instalments from the bills payable to the contractors. The amounts deducted shall be remitted to the bank towards repayment. It was further agreed that the sugar factory/Corporate Debtor shall pay the dues of H T Contractors from their own sources if the bill is found to be insufficient for repayment. Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Whether the Corporate Debtor is liable to repay the monies under the Harvesting and Transportation Loan? 2. Whether the IRP/Respondent was correct in rejecting the claim of the Applicant as a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor? Analysis: 1. The Tribunal considered the application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, related to a scheduled bank (Applicant) and a Company (Corporate Debtor) involved in the manufacturing of sugar products. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. The Applicant filed a claim for Harvesting & Transportation Loan (H & T Loan) and Performance Bank Guarantees (PBG) with supporting documents. The loan was sanctioned to meet the working capital demand of the Corporate Debtor for the harvest season, and various resolutions and undertakings were executed by the Corporate Debtor for repayment. 2. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on loan repayments, leading to accounts being classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). An offer for a One Time Settlement (OTS) was made, which was followed by the Applicant recalling all loan facilities and invoking guarantees. The legal issues revolved around the liability of the Corporate Debtor to repay the H & T Loan and the rejection of the Applicant's claim by the IRP. The Tribunal analyzed the terms of the loan agreement, resolutions, undertakings, and correspondence between the parties to determine the Corporate Debtor's obligation to repay the loan amount. 3. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had applied for financial assistance for hiring contractors, and the Applicant had sanctioned the H & T Loan with specific terms, including repayment obligations by a certain date. The Corporate Debtor had executed guarantees and undertakings for repayment. The rejection of the Applicant's claim by the IRP was set aside, and the Court directed the inclusion of the Applicant as a Financial Creditor and the reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) based on the findings of the loan agreement and related documents. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the background of the case, the terms of the loan agreement, the actions of the parties, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcome.
|
