9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) on 25.02.2015, the petitioners have been able to satisfy that the same is a legally recoverably financial debt. The Bank records corroborate that the amount for the Demand Draft in favour of GNIDA had been prepared from the account of the Petitioner no. I and tendered on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, thereby creating a financial liability on the Corporate Debtor to repay the same to petitioner no. 1 . Corporate Debtor has tried to raise the issue of filing of FIRS and criminal action against the petitioner, contemplated but other than a vague denial of the liability, no cogent repudiation has been shown to this Bench in respect of the payment made by Petitioner no. 1 towards the demand made by GNIDA in respect of the immovable asset of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orate Debtor from financial crisis which would have otherwise resulted in cancellation of the allotment of the land by the GNIDA in their favour. 3. The Financial Creditors submit that collectively a total of Rs. was given by them directly to Greater Noida Authority for and on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, and at their instance. Details of the loans given vide Demand Drafts on various dates by petitioner no.2, Parag Gupta Associates, from its Bank Accounts in favour of GNIDA have been given in para 8 of the petition. These have been tendered between 01st October, 2012 to 5th February 2013 directly towards the liability of the Corporate Debtor. The amounts given by Petitioner no. I Dr. Shilpa Gupta to Greater Noida towards liquidating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recover the same. The petitioners have tried to rely upon the Income Tax Returns filed by the Corporate Debtor for the assessment year 2014-15 2015-16. These Income Tax Returns do not specify that the short term borrowings of over 8 crores includes the loans alleged to have been given by the Petitioners herein. The Financial Statements filed the Corporate Debtor with the ROC also do not reflect the loans given by the petitioners so as to accept them as acknowledgment of a debt for enhancing the period of limitation. The said documents are therefore of no help to the Petitioners for the purpose of extending limitation. We therefore do not find that the amounts specified in Para no.8 of the petition are legally recoverable debts. 8. With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
