9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evive the Companies. Incidentally, in the process of evolving a Resolution Plan, there is an opportunity for the Corporate Debtor to have a moratorium and thereby delay the other recovery proceedings. But, that is only for a prescribed period of 180 days or for a further period of 90 days, if extended by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, to say that Corporate Debtor with a view to have the benefit of moratorium or with a view to delay the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act filed this Application do not merit acceptance. Another objection raised by the BOI is that the Corporate Applicant did not disclose about the pendency of proceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, factually it is not correct. The Applicant along with the Application gave a list of all the proceedings pending in various Courts and enclosed all the documents pertaining to the litigation filed by or against the Corporate Applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that Corporate Applicant suppressed the material facts and approached this Tribunal with unclean hands. The Application filed by the Corporate Applicant is complete in all respects. The option to recommend the name of IRP is given only to Applicant. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Financial Services Ltd., Magma Fincorp Ltd., Volks Wagen Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Saral Management Consultant, and Smt. Ashaben K Shah are unsecured creditors. The amount in default due to the Bank of India is ₹ 17,21,69,370/-. Various amounts that are in default to the other Unsecured Creditors listed above are shown in detail in Page Nos. 12 and 13 of the Application. The Applicant also filed List of Operational Creditors with required details at Page No. 131. It shows, there are 24 Operational Creditors and the total amount due to the Operational Creditors is ₹ 59,55,974.16 ps. Applicant filed Annual Accounts for the years ended 31.3.2016 and 31.3.2017 and copy of Unaudited Accounts as on 20th August, 2017. Applicant also filed details of Assets and Liabilities of the Company/Corporate Debtor. Applicant also furnished particulars of debts owed by R-2 persons connected with the Corporate Debtor. Applicant also furnished details of Guarantees in relation to debts of the Corporate Debtor. Applicant gave names and addresses of the Members of the Company- Corporate Debtor with their shareholding details. Applicant disclosed about the pending litigation in the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... published Possession Notice in the newspapers on 10.9.2015. The Corporate Applicant preferred Securitisation Application No. 109 of 2015 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad and obtained stay against the BOI from taking further action under the SARFAESI Act and the stay is in force. The BOI has also filed Original Application No. 78 of 2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad against the Corporate Applicant, its Directors and Guarantors for recovery of ₹ 19,63,86,969/- with interest and other charges. The BOI also filed Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for taking physical possession of the secured assets, but in view of the stay granted in Securitisation Application No. 109/2015, the said Application is pending. It is stated by the BOI that Corporate Applicant and its Directors having knowledge of the Securitisation Application No. 109 of 2015 and Original Application No. 78 of 2016 did not disclose the same in this Application filed under Section 10 read with Rule 7 of the Act and the Rules. The BOI further stated that there are several demands from Income Tax Department, VAT Department, Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days or for a further period of 90 days, if extended by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, to say that Corporate Debtor with a view to have the benefit of moratorium or with a view to delay the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act filed this Application do not merit acceptance. 12. Another objection raised by the BOI is that the Corporate Applicant did not disclose about the pendency of proceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal. But, factually it is not correct. The Applicant along with the Application gave a list of all the proceedings pending in various Courts and enclosed all the documents pertaining to the litigation filed by or against the Corporate Applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that Corporate Applicant suppressed the material facts and approached this Tribunal with unclean hands. The Application filed by the Corporate Applicant is complete in all respects. The option to recommend the name of IRP is given only to Applicant. No material is placed on record to indicate that IRP is interested in the Applicant Company. There is a right to Financial Creditors to replace IRP in the 1st meeting of Committee of Creditors. 13. In view of the above discussion, this App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
