9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 25 Lakhs has been acknowledged by the Financial Creditor to have been returned though the Corporate Debtor has claimed that a sum of ₹ 10 Lakhs have been paid back by the Corporate Debtor. However, no proof thereof has been brought on record to substantiate such claim - Be that as it may, even after taking into consideration said sum of ₹ 10 Lakhs, the amount claimed to be in default would remain more than ₹ 1 Lakh, considering both principal amount of ₹ 40 Lakhs given by the Financial Creditor or amount to be returned by the Corporate Debtor which was fixed at ₹ 60 Lakhs. Thus, this claim of the Corporate Debtor does not help the cause of the Corporate Debtor in any manner. In the reply the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor). FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Financial Creditor in pursuance of its agreement dated 25.05.2015 gave a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) to the Corporate Debtor for sale of certain plots to the Corporate Debtor by specified date i.e. thirty months from the date of signing of said agreement. The agreement also provided that in case the Corporate Debtor fail to provide such sale deed as a sum of ₹ 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) would be paid by the Corporate Debtor to Financial Creditor on 25.11.2017. The Corporate Debtor failed, hence, as per the Financial Creditor, the default occurred on 25.11.2017 in terms of the aforesaid agreement dated 25.05.2015. 3. The Ld. Counsel on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acknowledged by the Financial Creditor. REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF FINANCIAL CREDITOR 6. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has specifically been pointed out that the Director of the company made a statement that the amount due from the Corporate Debtor will not be returned. It has also been claimed that the company is not a going concern and no sale deeds claimed to be executed, have been brought on record. FINDINGS 7. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and material on record. The fact of disbursement of a sum of ₹ 40 Lakhs is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that a sum of ₹ 60 Lakhs had to be paid after thirty months from the date of execution of the agreement between the parties on 25.05.2015, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial Creditor whose consent has been placed on record. There exists no material to show that any disciplinary proceedings are pending against such proposed IRP or such IRP is otherwise not ineligible to be appointed. Hence we appoint Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh being Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IPN-00707/2018-2019/12418 and gmail id. - [email protected] as IRP. 10. The application filed the U/s. 7 of the Code, is otherwise complete and meet all other procedural requirements of the Code and Regulations made thereunder. Hence, we admit the same and passed the following order. i) The application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. v) The supply of essential goods or services rendered to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated, suspended, or interrupted during the moratorium period. vi) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. vii) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of admission till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. viii) Provided that where at any time during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
