9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the balance amount standing as on date 31.03.2020 was at 197.96 Crores and in view of the fact that the One Time Settlement was cancelled through the Letter of the Bank and because of the fact that in the Audited Balance Sheet in respect of the Financial Year 2019-20, the Corporate Debtor himself had proceeded to make a relevant mention among other things that the Company has entered into One Time Settlement dated 01.08.2019 with the State Bank of India to settle the outstanding SBI Loan (NPA) and interest due with One Time Payment of 112.00 Crores + cash margin of BG Outstanding to 2.7 Crores to be paid before 31st January 2020. If the Adjudicating Authority is subjectively satisfied that there was Debt due and payable in law and in fact, by the Corporate Debtor to in favour of the 1st Respondent/Bank/Financial Creditor then, in law, the Adjudicating Authority is left with no other alternative but to admit the application under the I B Code, 2016. On going through the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) is of the earnest opinion that the Adjudicating Authority was right in admitting the Application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Financial Creditor and there was a "default" on the part of the Corporate Debtor as claimed by the Financial Creditor. We, therefore, are of the view that in the instant case there is a financial debt and there has been a default in repayment of the same and that this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Financial Creditor has proved its case by placing evidence that default has occurred for which the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay. Further, it is pertinent herein to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the matter in the case of INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. ICICI Bank & ANR., in Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017, held as under: "………… The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. Under subsection (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate the order passed to the Financial Creditor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana - 509325." The clear-cut stand of the Appellant is that the 'Master Data' of the 2nd Respondent which reflected change in address was also provided to the 1st Respondent, etc. Moreover, the 2nd Respondent was not conducting any operations from its old registered address at 6-3-883/F1, 1st Floor, Pothula Towers Annexe, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082, Telangana from September 2021. The reason advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that due to the scaling down of operations because of COVID-19 crisis the 2nd Respondent was to change its registered address owing to change in infrastructure needs. This 'Tribunal' has heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and noticed its contentions. The case of the 1st Respondent/Bank/Financial Creditor is that the Corporate Debtor' had availed financial assistance from it and 'associated Banks' under the 'Consortium Arrangement' and committed 'Default' in repaying the 'Loan sum'. In fact, the 1st Respondent/Bank had filed Original Application No. 767 of 2018 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad-2 against the 'Corporate Debtor' and other Defendants therein for recovering a sum of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal', bringing to its notice in spite of the fact that the 'Debtor' had failed to adhere to the terms of 'One-time Settlement' and 'Joint Compromise Memo' and hence relief was sought from the 'Debt Recovery Tribunal' to pass an order for the same claimed in 'Original Application'. The Application before the 'Adjudicating Authority', in the present case, was filed whereby a claim was made for ₹ 277,55,86,069/- outstanding on 19.07.2021 ₹ 137,20,30,278 with accrued interest with effect from 01.09.2016 ₹ 137,65,55,791/0 and non-fund liability of a sum of ₹ 2,70,00,000/-. There is no two opinion of the fact that on 22.11.2021 after due notice and 'Substituted Service' of Paper Publication having been to effected, the 'Adjudicating Authority' had set 'Corporate Debtor' 'Exparte'. The emphatic plea made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. A.K. Krishnan, is that one opportunity may be provided to the 'Appellant' to put forward its defence in the main Application and in such an event, the 'Appellant' will be provided with an opportunity to contest the main case after the 'original order' passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' is set aside after hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
