9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and respondents the company petition CP 113(ND)2015 which was filed by the appellant had come to be disposed on 10.2.2016 and in the MOU there was a clause requiring the first party i.e. Respondent No.2, Hemant Suri to get released two properties of appellant in given time frame which was till 30th June, 2016 but this was not done and because of this the appellants suffered losses as they had to pay extra interest of about Rs. 14 lakhs as the property of the appellant was still stuck with the Bank. Learned counsel points out the document at Annexure P-2 (Page 51) to show the calculations. According to the counsel the NCLT has wrongly held in the present impugned order dated 19th March, 2018 that the judgement debtor had taken all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nallur, Chenni and Flat No. C 402, Elite Anmol, Piplayanaha, Indore are not considered in the list of IP's mortgaged. 2. Subsequently, Revised CHG1 was filed in Registrar of Companies on 2/4/2016, for creation of charge of Rs. 18 cr. On IP's mortgaged, in which also above side IP's in the name of Shri S. Janakiraman are not considered. 3. The original property documents for above said IP's would be handed over to the title holder only after receipt of necessary permission from competent authority." 4. The learned NCLT further considered the matter and recorded the finding on that date which is as follows: "In view of the above we find that the respondent has been making all the efforts to fulfil the obligation undertaken in para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed belatedly. This was beyond their control, but as required by the mortgagee Bank all steps were taken at their end. The Decree-Holder presses for being compensated with liquidated damages of Rs. 2 crores on account of the delay in terms of their compromise. He seeks to justify his claim on the basis of being burdened with the interest liability @ 13.5% instead of 7% now applicable on submission of title documents for the loan facility availed by him. This Bench is of the opinion that the Judgement Debtor had taken all steps to comply with the directions of this Bench. The delay was beyond their control. In view of the same, the relief claimed by the Decree Holder in respect of the liquidated damages is not justified and is rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent in NCLT and which has been commented upon by the NCLT in its order dated 13.7.2017 referring to the certificate/letter dated 15.9.2016 of the Bank and the present impugned order passed by the NCLT we find that the appellant does not make out a case in appeal for us to interfere. Reply filed in appeal of the Respondent is that Respondent submitted another property furnished by Respondent Nos 2 to 4 and bank issued sanction letter dated 30.3.2016 as at Annexure R-2. This is clearly before 30.6.2016. Respondent No.2 appears to have done what was in his capacity. Considering the observations of Learned NCLT in Order dated 13.7.2017 based on letter of the Bank and considering reasons recorded in impugned order we agree with NCLT. In fact, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
