9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CB/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2017 - K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy, J. For Appellant: N. Chandra Raj, Advocate For Respondents: Karthik Ranganathan and T.S. Sundaram, Advocates ORDER K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy, 1. Under Consideration is a Company Petition filed by Indian Bank (in short, 'Petitioner/Financial Creditor') against M/s. Infinitas Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (in short, 'Respondent/Corporate Debtor') under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (In short, 'IB Code 2016') r/w. Rule 4 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (for brevity, IB Rules 2016). 2. Before proceeding with this matter, it would be appropriate to make a note of background facts for the purpose of determination of this petition. 3. The Petitioner/FC is a Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and now is a nationalised Bank having its Branch office at Indian Guindy Branch, No. 131, GST Road, Chennai-14 whereas the Respondent/CD is a Private Unlimited Company in the business of renewable energy sector, claiming to be India's first professional end-to-end renewable power infr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel submitted that the above said condition as admitted by the CD was not adhered to and the CD had defaulted in conforming to the terms as agreed, hence the final sanction letter was not issued. It is also submitted that a letter dated 02.05.2017 from the petitioner to the CD clearly indicated that the restructuring scheme had failed therefore, the petitioner proceeded to recover its dues as fell due on 30.04.2017 with further interest thereon. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the Annual Report and Audited Balance Sheet dated 20.09.2013 of the respondent for the year 2015-16, the total outstanding borrowing of the Respondent/CD from the Petitioner/FC is ₹ 41,47,46,380/-. 10. The learned counsel submitted that when the Corporate Debtor was unable to pay its Financial Debt which became due and payable on various dates, then petitioner, having been left with no other option approached this Adjudicating Authority claiming the payment of ₹ 1500 Lakhs towards OCC and ₹ 2500 Lakhs towards LC Limits against the Corporate Debtor in capacity of a Financial Creditor under the provisions of the IB Code 2016. In view of the foregoing, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot applicable on Tribunals and the DRT is not a court thus the proceedings before the DRT cannot be considered a suit . Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has to adjudicate the matters keeping in view the inherent power entrusted and principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that suit filed before the DRT and the petition filed before this Adjudicating Authority are on different footing as the OA filed before the DRT relates to recovery proceedings whereas the instant petition before this Adjudicating Authority pertains to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and declaring the Corporate Debtor insolvent. Moreover, if such a peculiar situation is permitted then the very authority of insolvency code will come at stake and there will be no finality of judgment. To further support his claim, the learned counsel relied on a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017 wherein and whereby it was held that the IB Code 2016 would prevail over the Maharashtra Act, 1956. He finally submitted that in view of the above, the IB Code would prevail over SARF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffirmed, then a piquant situation would be permitted where an Adjudicating Authority, exclusively created by the legislature to decide insolvency matters filed by the Financial/Operational Creditors would have to await decisions of other tribunals/courts, thus frustrating the very purpose of parliamentary intention at quick resolution of insolvency matters. The public purpose underlying the creation of Adjudicating Authority would thus be easily countenanced and such a decision cannot be plainly approved. In the circumstances, I am inclined to admit the instant application. 20. Therefore, the instant petition is admitted and I order the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process which shall ordinarily get completed within 180 days, reckoning from the day this order is passed. 21. I appoint Mr. R. Venkatakrishnan as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) proposed by the Financial Creditor. There is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the IRP and his name is reflected in IBBI website. The IRP is directed to take charge of the Respondent/Corporate Debtor's management immediately. He is also directed to cause public announcement as prescribed under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
