9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr. Adv., Rajarshi Dutta, N.S. Auluwalia, Saswat Acharya For the Respondent : Adhish Sharma, A. Mohanty, A.K. Dey, Advs., Lalatendu Mohanty, Diwakar Maheshwari, Amit Patnaik and Pratiksha Mishra, Advs ORDER Sucharitha R., Member (J) 1. This application has been filed by Resolution Professional of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited under Section 14 read with Section 17 and Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Central Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Bank of India and State Bank of India. Applicant seeks certain directions against respondent on account of their unilateral action of appropriating the receivables of the Corporate Debtor deposited in the cash credit account and the working capital account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Insolvency Resolution Process various credits were given towards the loan account of the Corporate Debtor by all the four respondents. However, it is said by the respondents that some of the payments were paid by the erstwhile Resolution Professional on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, it is not appropriated towards the loan due of the Corporate Debtor by the respondents. Hence, no violation of Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 4. This Adjudicating Authority by Order dated 27.09.2019 directed the Resolution Professional to call for a meeting between the applicant and the respondents to sort out the issue regarding the actual amount to be reversed by each respondent. The meeting was held on 9th October, 2019 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by each respondent as per the tabular column given below: - (INR in Cr.) Financial Creditor As per Form - C 31st August, 2019 Bank of India 12.33 - Central Bank of India 13.29 12.70 Syndicate Bank 3.23 - State Bank of India (incl SBBJ) 1.00 - Total 29.85 12.70 7. The 1st respondent, the Central Bank of India states that the Corporate Debtor was availing Cash Credit Hypothecation facility under Consortium, and Term Loan outside the consortium. After the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the respondent/bankers alongwith the other consortium ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the erstwhile Resolution Professional himself has remitted some amount in the credit of the cash credit account. Hence, there is no contravention of Section 14 and Section 17(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In respect to the claim of Rs. 25.32 crores as on 18.07.2019, which included fund-based outstanding of Rs. 12.86 crores and NFB outstanding or Rs. 12.46 crores. The respondent further states that there is no question of appropriation of any amount. However, the erstwhile Resolution Professional had paid the amount and settled the dues. 9. The 4th respondent, the State Bank of India in its reply states that they have recalled the loan accounts on 21.03.2017 much before the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratorium period. So, this respondent categorically states that they have not violated the provisions of Section 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, the erstwhile Resolution Professional has inadvertently paid the loan amount. 10. There is no representation for Syndicate Bank. However, from the foregoing submissions of the respondents, it is clear that during the moratorium period various payments towards non-fund and fund-based accounts of the respondents were credited by the erstwhile Resolution Professional. Hence, these payments ought to be reversed as receivables of the Corporate Debtor. The meeting to sort out the issue between them have failed. The applicant has submitted the amount due and reversal by eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
