9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting of 14 Banks who had extended Financial Assistance earlier, the Company was ordered to be liquidated. Mr. V. Mahesh was appointed as a Liquidator of M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited (CUL) pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by this Tribunal in MA/289/2018. 4. It is submitted that subsequent to the liquidation order issued by this Tribunal, the Applicant has filed Form - D (proof of claim by the Financial Creditors) under Regulation 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 on 10.01.2019 with the said Liquidator claiming a sum of Rs. 124,02,44,265/- as on 11.05.2018 being the debt amount due from the 2nd Respondent. 5. It is further submitted that the Liquidator of the M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited i.e., CUL had rejected the aforesaid claim amount on 11.05.2020 by observing that no such claim from lenders to BOOT OPERATORS or EPCM CONTRACTORS or any other third party and their respective clients, if any, is tenable under law. As against the said rejection, the above Application viz., IA/419/2020 has been filed by Central Bank of India before this Tribunal. 6. The Applicant Bank in this IA/419/2020 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Limited had deposited the title deeds relating to the leasehold rights and interest in respect of immovable properties together with all buildings and structures thereon in favour of the term loan lenders including the applicant therein. It is also stated that besides executing 'Mortgage Deed' registered as Document No. 4148/2012, Sub Registrar Office, Joint-II, Cuddalore over the said property, the 2nd Respondent had also duly registered a charge before ROC, Andhra Pradesh. 12. The Banks in 1 to 4 stated in the table supra are known as boot lenders whereas M/s. Coastal Oil & Gas Infrastructure Private Limited is known as Boot Operators in the 322.06 acre of lands obtained under lease from Small Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) as well as the acres owned by M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited viz., the CUL. 13. As per their averment, the Applicant Bank along with other lenders having vested right and the amount received by the Boot Operators from the loan extended by the lenders having been utilized for construction of various facilities which belong to the CUL have the right to submit their claim before the Liquidator. 14. It has been submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... participated in various CoC meetings and is fully aware of the amount admitted and amount rejected in relation to NOCL and hence the Appellant cannot feign ignorance. 20. The Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submitted that in relation to the claim of the Appellant for a sum of Rs. 624.56 Crores in respect of Credit facility extended to NOCL has been duly accepted and the Appellant is a part of the CoC of NOCL. Further, it was submitted that in the 2nd CoC meeting held on 15.10.2019, it has been recorded as follows; BOOT OPERATORS & SUB - LEASE The Liquidator briefed about the challenges to deal with the Boot operators issues. It is the Liquidator's view that the Sub - Lessee can't have more rights than the Lessee (NOCL). The Lenders were request to discuss internally to clear any ambiguity pertaining to the mortgage created on the land. The Mortgage or change created, if any, is not the knowledge of the Liquidator, in favour of BOOT Operators on the Assets owned by NOCL and Lease Hold Rights enjoyed by them. The Secured Lenders who are common to the NOCL and COGIL agreed to discuss matter internally and intimate the Liquidator accordingly. This was taken on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contractual obligations between the Appellant and NOCL in this regard or any charge being registered by NOCL or the Appellant herein with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, the claim of the Appellant cannot even be treated as a "Debt" by the Liquidator. 25. The Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submitted that Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that charge which is not registered with the Registrar of Companies is void against the liquidator and other creditors of the Company. Further, it was submitted that the claim of the Appellant is nothing but an abuse of process of law and a desperate attempt to create obstacles and pressuring tactics being adopted by the Appellant when a Scheme is in the offing. 26. Heard both sides and perused the documents, including the pleadings placed on record. 27. From the documents filed and from the rival contentions made by the Counsel for both the parties, it is seen that the Appellant Bank has filed its claim in relation to the dues pending from COGIL before the Liquidator of NOCL. However, COGIL had filed its claim before the Liquidator, which stood rejected and against the said order of rejection, no appeal seems to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation has not been set up as a defence. The said proposition is equally applicable even in relation to an Appeal as in the instant case in view of the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) by virtue of Section 238A of IBC, 2016. 30. From the documents placed on record, it is seen that a charge of Equitable Mortgage by deposit of title deeds was created by COGIL in favour of the Appellant Bank in respect of the properties which were leased out by NOCL to COGIL. However, from the claim form filed in Form D by the Appellant Bank with the Liquidator on 10.01.2019, in relation to the details of debt incurred, it is stated that COGIL had availed term loan disbursed on 02.09.2011. In relation to dates giving rise to cause of action, if assuming if there is any, as against NOCL, nothing more has been specified as to when the debt of the Appellant Bank has become due and payable. Further, no documents have been placed on record to show that the Appellant Bank has demanded repayment of the said loan from NOCL or for that matter from COGIL. The charge was registered with the RoC, Chennai on 25.10.2012 by COGIL, and from the documents filed along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
