9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id applications were made on 11-2-2000 and 22-8-2000 respectively. 2. A hearing to review the payment of installments to be paid by the applicant, M/s. Core Healthcare Ltd., as per the Interim Order of the Commission dated 2-12-2002 was held on 12-3-2003. 3. The applicant, M/s. Core Healthcare Ltd. was represented by Shri Uday Joshi, Advocate, Shri Jatin R. Jalundhwala, General Manager (Finance Legal), Shri Kamlesh J. Shah, Manager (Finance) and Shri Rakesh S. Shah, Authorised Representative. 4. The ld. Advocate submitted that the applicant vide its letter dated 11-3-2003 has submitted that the Commission had given monthly installment of Rs. 79.45 lakhs in the case of two applications where total admitted duty liability is Rs. 27.89 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... measures to recover their debt in terms of the said Act. 7. As per Section 13(6) of the Securitisation Act, once the right is exercised by the secured creditors, the pledged assets shall vest in the transferee i.e. secured creditors. All rights in or in relation to the secured asset shall stand transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner (the applicant) of the secured assets. The buyer (secured creditors in this case) cannot get a title better than what the original owner had. In other words, the transferee gets the assets saddled with all the liabilities which the original owner had. The liabilities may be pertaining to labour, past electricity dues (without which electricity supply may not be restored), earlier taxation d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) Mumbai. 12. The Revenue submitted that since the applicants are not adhering to the order of the Commission, the case may be sent back to the Revenue for further appropriate action. 13. The Commission has gone through the records and heard the submissions made by the ld. Advocate and the Revenue. 14. The Commission finds that the presumption of the applicant that in the event of ICICI bank taking over the assets of the applicant, they will also have to take over the liabilities of the applicants does not seem to be well based or supported by any judicial pronouncement. While borrowing the money, the applicant would have pledged only his assets to the lender. The lender will never accept th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. the applicant neither has the capacity to pay the balance amount of duty i.e. Rs. 11.24 Crores nor will be able to have that capacity even in future also. We find that this is a case where the applicant is neither presently in a position to co-operate with the Settlement Commission nor will he ever have the capacity to co-operate in future also because they will never have any means to liquidate the balance duty liability of Rs. 11.24 Crores. Since the applicant for reasons beyond his control, is unable to co-operate in the proceedings before us by way of payment of full duty liability disclosed before us, we are left with no option but to send the above two cases back to the proper officer who shall thereupon dispose of the said case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
