9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim of the applicant company to the tune of Rs. 5,63,67,620/- towards the interest component' was rejected and further directed to the Resolution Professional to re-examine the principle of law on the point of limitation and reconsider the claim of the petitioner on the point of principal amount. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Appellant has provided a loan facility to the Corporate Debtor vide agreement dated 06.07.2010. The Corporate Debtor was unable to discharge its liability, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings were initiated against it, vide order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and Mr. Pankaj Khaitan was appointed as the IRP of the Corporate Debtor. ii) The Appellant herein filed its claim dated 12.02.2020 to the tune of Rs. 10,46,64,5558/- (Rs. 4,82,93,938/- as Principal Amount and Rs. 5,63,67,620/- as Interest Component), as Financial Creditor before the Resolution Professional. iii) The Resolution Professional vide its communication dated 22.02.2020 only admitted the claim towards Principal amount to the tune of Rs. 4,82,93,938/- and without any cogent basis, rejected the interest componen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bared by Limitation but also erroneously directed the Resolution Professional to reconsider the claim of the Appellant towards the principal component also being barred by limitation (which was duly admitted by the Resolution Professional). 6. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment passed by this Appellate Tribunal in the case of "Hussan Kadri Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1073 of 2019" wherein it has been held that part payment extends the limitation period. Thus in view of the same, admittedly the last payment was made by the Corporate Debtor on 22.03.2019 (at page 53 of the Appeal) which clearly proves that the claim dated 12.02.2020 (both principal and interest components) were within limitation. 7. It is further submitted that the liability has been duly acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor in its Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2019 (at page 107, 107A, 108, 108B of the Appeal). Thus as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S. Natarajan Vs. Sama Dharman & Anr." that if the amount borrowed is shown in the balance sheet, it amounts to acknowledgement and the creditor shall have a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent 12. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument and in his Reply Affidavit along with Written Submissions submitted that as to whether the interest for the period from 01st August 2010 to 29th January 2019 (being CIRP commencement date) can be recognised as a liability of the Corporate Debtor and corresponding claim of interest can be admitted by the Resolution Professional, despite the fact that: i) The interest for the said period is nowhere reflected in the Audited Financial statements of the Corporate Debtor or the Appellant; ii) The data provided by the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor to the Resolution Professional, also nowhere match the amount of claim for interest; iii) The interest was never booked as an expense by the Corporate Debtor (at page 25 of the Reply Affidavit) and never recognised as income by the Appellant (at page 17 of the Reply Affidavit); iv) The TDS was never deducted by Corporate Debtor and never availed by the Appellant; v) The loan agreement is ex-facie bogus, as it bears the rubber stamp of CIN of the Corporate Debtor and is neither Notarised nor registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above required that the interest must be charged in accounts on "Accrual" basis and there is a complete absence of any compliance of law as well as alleged contractual terms, therefore, without prejudice to the plea that the agreement itself is bogus document, it can be seen that there was a complete disregard lf law for continuous 9 years, leading to an inference that there never existed any agreement for payment of interest. 16. It is further submitted that the accounting standard for revenue recognition is AS-9 for the purpose of accounting as applicable to Appellant is relevant as the interest claimed by the Appellant constitute revenue for the Appellant. The relevant paragraphs of AS-9 read as hereunder: "13. Revenue arising from the use by others of enterprise resources yielding interest, royalties and dividends should only be recognised when no significant uncertainty as to measurability or collectability exists. There revenues are recognised on the following bases: (i) Interest : On a time proportion basis taking into account the amount outstanding and the rate applicable. (ii) Royalties : On an accrual basis in accordance with the terms of the relevant agreement. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. ii) The data provided by the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor to the Resolution Professional, also nowhere match the amount of claim for interest. iii) The interest was never booked as an expense by the Corporate Debtor (at page 25 of the Reply Affidavit) and never recognised as income by the Appellant (at page 17 of the Reply Affidavit). iv) The TDS was never deducted by Corporate Debtor and never availed by the Appellant. v) The loan agreement is ex-facie bogus, as it bears the rubber stamp of CIN of the Corporate Debtor and is neither Notarised nor registered, no stamp duty paid thereon. There was no requirement of mentioning CIN on the letterhead of the companies at the time of the purported date of the agreement and no subsequent requirement to mention the same on documents executed prior to enforcement of new Companies Act, 2013. This makes it clear that the said document at Annexure B of the Appeal is a fabricated document by ante-dating the same. vi) The statement of accounts annexed as Annexure -C at page 63 of the Appeal, purporting to be the ledger account of Appellant in the books of Corporate Debtor is also bogus as the same does not match with the audited a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
