9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Adjudicating Authority or before this Tribunal and therefore the claim of the Appellant that interest was payable at 15% per annum is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. There are force in the contention of the Counsel for the Appellant that the amount remitted by the Appellant has been reflected in the Balance Sheet of the Respondent Company as Long Term Borrowings due to its tenure being 10 years and later to be converted to Investment . The amount cannot be construed as a default as on January, 2019. It is satisfying that the Appellant could not establish any default on the part of the Respondent by way of any documentary evidence - It is also an admitted fact that the Balance Sheet of the Respondent whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnum for the period from May 8, 2017 till date, which is as hereunder: Particulars Amount (in Rupees) Amount disbursed on 8.5.2017 50,00,000 Amount further disbursed by the Financial Creditor on 9.5.2017 80,00,000 Balance as on 9.5.2017 1,30,00,000 Amount further disbursed by the Financial Creditor on 12.5.2017 30,00,000 Balance as on 12.5.2017 and onwards 1,60,00,000 ii) Further case of the Appellant is that the Respondent had paid interest and deposited the tax deducted at sour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed the Application filed by the Appellant under Section 7 of the IBC. Hence this Appeal. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 3. The Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and in his Written Submissions submitted that the Appellant under an oral agreement, disbursed an amount of ₹ 1,60,00,000/- during the period commencing on May 8, 2017 till May 12, 2017. 4. It is further submitted that the Appellant is neither a Non-Banking Financial Company nor registered with the Reserve Bank of India as a Non- Banking Financial Institution or Bank under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 nor has any other business related with the Respondent. 5. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the parties, we are of the considered view that the following facts are admitted in the instant Appeal. The claim of the Appellant that the loan is payable on demand and recall notice sent on 02.01.2019 to pay the amount by 09.01.2019, in this regard no reply given by Respondent, hence in default from 09.01.2019. The Respondent has taken the stand that the notice at page No 59 of the Appeal is different from the correct address mentioned by the Appellant themselves at page No. 42 of the Appeal and thus no delivery was ever made. Further, a track report of the Post Office as Not Delivered Unclaimed at page 63 of the Appeal filed by the Appellant themselves shows there is not cause of action. The entire case of the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No notice whatsoever was received. The said claim is false on the face of the record in as much as: a) The alleged notice was sent to a wrong address and not the address of the Corporate Debtor; b) The Postal Tracking Report filed by the Appellant says that the post was not delivered; c) That the Appellant has made false averments before the NCLT stating that even after service the Corporate Debtor has not paid the amount; and d) The Appellant has falsely claimed that the same is served. vi TDS has been deducted by the Corporate Debtor. a) TDS was deducted for interest at the rate of 11% p.a. as required under law; b) No payment made to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lish any default on the part of the Respondent by way of any documentary evidence. It is also an admitted fact that the Balance Sheet of the Respondent which was relied on by the Appellant, perusal thereof, crystal clear that the amount was accepted by the Respondent for investment purposes. ORDER 10. Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned order while dismissing the Application filed by the Appellant under Section 7 of the IBC, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Bench-III in CP (IB) No. 383 (ND) of 2019 is hereby affirmed. There is no merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
