9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk and the Corporate Debtor. It appears to us, that the only intention of the applicant is to delay the proceedings in one way or the other approaching various forums including the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, wherein all his attempts were failed. From the verification of the earlier proceedings of this matter, it is seen that the Suspended Directors are not at all co-operating in the CIR Process and they were only on the lookout of creating hurdle to the continuation of CIR Process. Moreover, the applicant herein is a shareholder of the Company and as rightly pointed out by the Respondents that he is not entitled to claim any relief against the CoC or the conduct of the CIRP. Application dismissed. - IA(IBC)/161/KOB/2021 & MA(IBC)/39/KOB/2021 TIBA/7/KOB/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2022 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Anil Kumar. B, Member (Technical) Mr. V.K Abdul Rahim Versus CA Jasin Jose Resolution Professional/Liquidator of Sargam Builders Pvt. Ltd, Federal Bank, Jacob Thomas, Laly Thomas, Gracy Abraham, Varghese Jacob, Jainamma Jacob And Mr. V.K Abdul Rahim Versus CA Jasin Jose FOR THE APPLICANTS : S/Sh. BABU KARUKAPADATH, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced by the respondents. 4. The applicant stated that under Section 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as Code ), the Liquidator has to verify the claims received by him and, under Section 40 thereof, the Liquidator has to make a decision thereon, admitting or rejecting the claim. Sec.40 (2) enjoins a duty on the Liquidator to communicate such a decision to the Corporate Debtor as well within 7 days thereof. However, so far, no such decision of admitting or rejecting any of the claims of any of the creditors is communicated by the 1st respondent to the applicant, who is the suspended Managing Director, or any other authorized person of the Corporate Debtor. 5. However, from the report of Liquidator filed before this Tribunal, it has come to light that the Liquidator has admitted the illegal claim of the 2nd respondent bank of Rs. 5,41,90,029/-, while the total principal amount projected by the bank is onlyRs. 1,10,25,692/- towards the term loan amount and bank guarantee amount. The balance amount admitted by the Liquidatorof Rs. 4.32 Crore is the pendente lite interest for the last 8 years when the dispute was pending before the Debts R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per One Time Settlement Letter dated 03.02.2016 and it is only with respect to the term loan of Rs. 27,57,321/-.So, the Bank Guarantee claim of the Bank was time-barred in all respects. Hence, the applicant contends that the Liquidator ought not to have accepted or admitted the claim under the BG at all, as it is barred by limitation. 8. The 1st respondent Liquidator admitted the homebuyers claims, whereas he has not accepted the claim of the applicant. 9. The applicant stated that even after requests for supplying copies of Minutes of 1st and 2nd Stakeholders Committee Meeting, the 1st Respondent/ Liquidator has not provided those documents. Hence he had obtained copies from this Tribunal. From this, it is learned that the entire statements in the minutes are totally incorrect and misleading. The applicant also realized from the said reports that the 1st respondent has admitted the false, fabulous, and unfounded claims of the respondents 2 to 7 for the benefit of the respondents. 10. The Liquidator filed counter and stated that the applicant was also a petitioner in MA No.207/KOB/2020 in lA No.129/KOB/2020 in TIBA/07/KOB/2019 and IA(IBC) 101/KOB/2021, in which similar fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be applied only in the case where there is no specific ROI is mentioned in agreements in the case of Homebuyers as a class of creditors under Insolvency Resolution Process for corporate Process Regulation 2016 and in this case, very well the NCDRC has specifically ordered to apply Rate of Interest of SBI which is stated as above. 15. The averments that the Liquidator has not shared the documents is absolutely false, because the Liquidator shared the copy of minutes on obtaining the Non-Disclosure. Undertaking as per theprovisions of the IBC and requested the applicant to obtain from this Tribunal any additional information. 16. The 2nd Respondent filed counter and stated that the contention that the defaulting borrower has to be given the benefit of a reduced rate of interest as a rule only because the bank had to resort to legal recourse on account of non-payment by the borrower is a far-fetched and unreasonable contention. The Corporate Debtor is not entitled to any discretionary exercise of power by the Civil Court or by this Tribunal. It is a settled law that the court which passes the decree is entitled to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 34 CPC wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u Karukapadath and learned counsel for RespondentNo. 1 Shri. Akhil Suresh and R2 shri. Mohan Jacob George. Wehave meticulously perused the case records and various documents annexed with this MA.We have also gone through the extant provisions of the Code and Rules made thereunder.It is seen that the applicant wasgoing on challenging the procedure adopted by the IRP /RP and Liquidator in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. When Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the I B Code,2016, after hearing the contention of the Corporate Debtor in which the applicant herein was the Managing Director, this Tribunal vide order dated 20.9.2019 admitted the application. In the 4th CoC meeting held on 3.9.2020 the CoC with 77.92% voting right resolved not to re-issue the Form G further and not to go for fresh EOI and recommended to file application before this Adjudicating Authority for Liquidation of Company under Section 33 (2) of IBC 2016. Resolution Professional based on the resolution passed in the 4thCoC filed I.A No. 129/KOB/2020 on 07.09.2020 before this Tribunal. Vide order dated 16.09.2020 this Tribunal allowed the application and ordered Liquidation of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
