9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code"). 2. The brief facts leading to the petition are follows : The respondent originally incorporated on October 13, 1993 under the Companies Act, 1956 was a private limited company. Subsequently it was converted into a public limited company (CIN No. L17116AP1993PLC-016428) with effect from October 28, 1994. The company, inter alia, carried on the business as manufacturers, processors, dealers, contractors, agents, suppliers, stockist, representatives, importers, exporters, etc., of all varieties of silks, artificial silks, synthetics, polyester rayon and allied yarns in India and abroad. It approached the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) for grant of credit facilities to finance its business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process (CIRP). 3. The respondent appeared in response to the notice and contested the petition. It admitted to have availed various credit facilities from IDBI and hence the petitioner by way of rupee term loans and foreign currency loans on execution of loan and security agreements. It committed default for reasons beyond its control. Default resulted due to extraneous factors namely, slump in the textile sector and devastation caused by natural calamity in the form of cyclone "Hud Hud" in October 2014. The petitioner did not consider the adverse circumstances nor complied with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Master Circular relating to relief measures in areas affected by natural calamities. The respondent had also the disadvantage of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) with interest. The learned Debts Recovery Tribunal by its order dated August 17, 2018 allowed the application ex parte against the respondent and ordered recovery of the amount with pendente lite and future interest at 12 per cent. per annum. According to the petitioner the amount stood at Rs. 158,16,18,256 (rupees one fifty eight crores sixteen lakhs eighteen thousand two hundred and fifty six only) as on March 1, 2019. 6. The only defence taken by the respondent is that the debt being barred by limitation an application under section 7 of the Code could not be maintained. The "debt" defined under section 3(11) of the Code means, a liability or obligation in respect of the claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent to August 17, 2018. Therefore, the defence contention that the debt was time barred cannot be accepted. The issue is answered in the negative. 8. In an application under section 7 of the Code the reason for the inability of the respondent in paying off the debt is not required to be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority. What is required to be seen is the default. In this case the default has been satisfactorily proved. Thus the petition needs to be admitted. The petitioner has suggested the name of an interim resolution professional (IRP) and has also enclosed his written consent. No disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed IRP as ascertained from the website of the IBBI. Hence ordered. Order The company p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
