9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 7(5)(b) of the IBC, 2016 for being incomplete in details. Petition dismissed. - CP/358/(IB)/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2018 - B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. VIJAY ARAGHAVAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Applicant/FC : Ms. Abitha Banu, Advocate For the Respondent/CD : Mr. P.A. Dellhi Babu, Advocate ORDER Per : S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Under consideration is a Company petition filed by M/S. Vinayaka Exports and Mrs.Divya M.Jain (Financial Creditors) against M/s.Colorhome Developers Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 1B Code 2016) r/w rule 4 of Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority ) Rules, 2016 (for brevity, 1B Rules 2016). 1. The Corporate Debtor is a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 28.05.2010 having its registered office at Old No.23, New No. 19, 7th Street, W Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600040. 2. The amount grated to the respondent is 00.20 crores (0.20 crores disbursed by the 1 st Applicant on 10.08.2012 and 01.12.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Doc. No. 8353 of 2015 dated 05.06.2015 executed before the Sub-Registrar, Selaiyur. In addition to the mortgage deed, Agreement for Sale of 19 flats had been executed by the respondent company to Ms.Bhavika Jain, Proprietor of the I st Petitioner concern on different dates before the SRO Selaiyur, Padappai and Tambaram [Pg. No. 140 to 323 of the Typeset filed by the Respondent] as security towards the debt owned by M/s.Colorhomes. 6. The Respondent has stated that the amount borrowed from the Petitioners and from the family members of the petitioners by M/s.Colorhomes and the amount paid to them by M/s.Colorhomes and Ws.Colorhome Developers Private Limited are tabulated below: 7. The Respondent has stated that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent arose when the entire amount due to the I st Petitioner was paid by the respondent company. Even after paying the amount due with interest the petitioners started to demand exorbitant interest towards the amount given as loan. Since, the entire due amounts were paid, the respondent company insisted the 1st Petitioner to cancel the registered mortgage deed but they did not accede to it which le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of TNPCEI Act, 2003; Cr. No. 51 of2015 u/s 420, 465, 468, 120 WC; cr. No. 164 of 2017 u/s 406, 420, 506(2) of IPC r /w 3 4 of TNPCEI Act, 2003 and cr. No. 179 of 2017 u/s 420 of 506(1) IPC. The Petitioners were habitual offenders engaged in charging of exorbitant interest, they were arrested and were released on bail in the above crimes. Already, 4 FIR's were filed against them under Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 which were disclosed by the petitioners themselves in their Anticipatory Bail Petition filed before the High Court of Madras. [Pg. No. 98 of Typeset filed by the Respondent]. 11. The Respondent has stated that the petitioners have enclosed a legal notice sent by the respondent company dated 24.06.2017, but suppressed the two legal notices sent by them dated 24.02.2018 to the sole proprietorship concern i.e, Ws. Colorhomes through their advocate Mr.A. Damodaran, in which they categorically admits that the above cheques were issued to M/S. Colorhomes and also clearly mentions the promissory note was executed by the Sole Proprietor Shri.Duraisamy Ramesh. [Pg. No. 126 to 135 of the Typeset filed by the Respondent]. A reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners have stated that in the reply notice dated 06.03.2018 issued by the Respondent to the Notice issued Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Respondent has admitted that the it has availed loan of from the 1st Petitioner and from the 2nd Petitioner. In the present proceedings the Respondent claims that it has borrowed but has repaid nearly QI Crores. In the Counter filed by the Respondent before this Tribunal, it is admitted that it has borrowed from the IS t Petitioner and Crores from the 2nd Petitioner and that the false statements made by the Respondent in the previous proceedings show the conduct of the Respondent. 18.The petitioners have stated that the following would show that the Respondent is the borrower -Loan Documents executed by the Respondent (Document No. 3 to 7). The Respondent issued legal notice dated 24.06.2017 to the 1 st Petitioner wherein the Respondent has admitted that it has borrowed loan from the I st Petitioner. The notice reads as follows:- under instructions from my client Ws. Colorhome Developers Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director Mr.D.Ramesh.. My client states that from the year 2012 to 2015, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
