9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC) was admitted and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor commenced. 2. The facts giving rise in the instant Appeal is as under: i) That the Appellants - Corporate Debtor was interalia engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of processed glass and allied goods. The Corporate Debtor was in this business since 2011. ii) For the purpose of diversifying its business, the Corporate Debtor approached the Respondent No. 1 in order to obtain credit facilities. The Respondent No. 1 agreed to provide credit facilities to the Corporate Debtor. The credit facilities that the Corporate Debtor sought for from the Respondent No. 1, was in the nature of Cash Credit, Term Loan and Bank Guarantees. iii) Further case is that On 16.01.2012, the Respondent No. 1 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- as Cash Credit, a sum of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- and 90,00,000/- as Term Loan. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 1 also provided a Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in favour of the Corporate Debtor (Annexure-C at page 70 to 88 of the Appeal Paper Book). iv) Further case is that the credit facilities were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- was made over by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-H at page 149 to 151 of the Appeal Paper Book). ix) The Corporate Debtor could not tide over its financial difficulties. As a result, there was default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in making repayment of the credit facilities as made over by the Respondent No. 1. In the said circumstances, the Respondent no. 1, in terms of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, on Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances dated 01.07.2008, declared the account of the Corporate Debtor as Non-Performing Asset with effect from 30th June, 2014, Thereafter, the Respondent No. l made over a consolidated notice under Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to the Corporate Debtor. x) The Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of the dues of the Respondent No. 1, a proceeding under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, being O.A. No. 239 of 2015 was initiated by the Respondent No. 1 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II, Ahmadabad. xi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial statements of the Corporate Debtor being Annexure - R/5 and Annexure - R/6 of the Reply Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1, would not corroborate any acknowledgement in writing within the prescribed period of limitation. 9. It is further submitted that in view of the facts and submissions the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, therefore the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (Union Bank of India erstwhile Corporation Bank) during the course of argument and his Reply Affidavit as also Written Submissions submitted that the Appellants during the course of the arguments are completely baseless and without application of mind. 11. It is further submitted that the Appellants contented that they did not acknowledge the financial statements available on the MCA website (which is a public domain) for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 are completely false. 12. It is further submitted that such false statements/submissions made by the Appellants before this Tribunal amounts to forgery, as the financial statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not barred by limitation, and therefore, admitted the same. We have already set aside the majority judgment of the Full Bench of the NCLAT dated 12.03.2020, and the impugned judgment of the NCLAT dated 22.12.2020 in paragraphs 33 and 34. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, and the matter is remanded to the NCLAT to be decided in accordance with the law laid down in our judgment." 16. It is further submitted that based on these submissions the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the impugned order. There is no merit in the instant Appeal, the Appeal is fit to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 17. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 - Resolution Professional of the 'Corporate Debtor' during the course of argument and his Affidavit stated that on 08.06.2020 made the public announcement in the prescribed "Form-G" in the newspapers, namely, the Business Standard (English) and Divya Bhaskar (Gujrati) (Gujrat Edition) (Annexure- G at page 76 of the Affidavit). 18. It is further submitted that the 3rd Committee of Creditors (for Short CoC) meeting was duly convened on 02.07.2020 by the RP wherein the members resolved to defer the resolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit). 28. It is further submitted that the members of CoC decided not to consider the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Gundeepsingh Sood and others as it was not complying with the Minimum Criteria as specified in Section 25(2)(h) of the Code. Further, the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Mega Innovative Crops Private Limited was discussed during the meeting and the members of the CoC negotiated the same in terms of finance and accordingly, M/s. Mega Innovative Crops Private Limited agreed to submit the revised plan within 3 days from the conclusion of 10th meeting of the CoC (Annexure-T at page 191 to 199 of the Affidavit). Thereafter, M/s Mega Innovative Crops Private Limited submitted revised resolution plan on 19.03.2021. 29. It is further submitted that 11th CoC meeting was duly convened on 24.03.2021 by the RP wherein the members decided to put the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Mega innovative Crops Private Limited for e-voting subject to increasing the final value of the plan as per the expectations of the member of the CoC and period of 2 days were given to the Resolution Applicant for taking in to considerations the requirements of member of CoC and to submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these Term Loan Agreements, the Respondent No. 1 provided further credit facilities, of Term Loans for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- respectively, to the Corporate Debtor. Further, a sanction letter dated 09.01.2013 was made by the Respondent No. 1 to the Corporate Debtor, in terms the revised credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 11,50,00,000/-. It is also admitted fact that as the Corporate Debtor failed to pay instalment of the loan amount dated 01.07.2008, the account of the Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA w.e.f. 30th June, 2014. It is also admitted fact that a proceeding under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, being O.A. No. 239 of 2015 was initiated by the Respondent No. 1 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II, Ahmadabad. The Respondent No. 1 on 14.02.2019, initiated a proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 being C.P. (IB) No. 305/KB/2019 before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata and passed the impugned order. In view of the fact the account of the Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA on 30th June, 2014. The Appellant su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
