9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning from 03.01.1997. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- As per the MOU dated 03.01.1997, the loan has been agreed to be given for two years. As per the MOU executed between the parties, as per clause 1 at page 14 of the Supplementary Affidavit, the Ist default occurred on 03.01.1999. The letter dated 13.09.2002 has been given by the Respondent admitting the loan has been obtained from the Petitioner is annexed at page 17 of the supplementary affidavit - There is no explanation as to what happened between 14.09.2002 upto 27.07.2014 - almost (12) twelve long years. Thereafter, from 28.07.2014 upto the date of demand notice i.e. 28.05.2021, there is a long period that has elapsed which will be approx, seven (07) years. The petitioner is repet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solvency Resolution Process (CIRP), against the Respondent/Corporate Debtor namely, M/s. Growth Techno Projects Limited (GTPL). 2. The Corporate Debtor is a Public Limited Company, incorporated on 16.01.1985, having Company Identification Number (CIN) U74210DL1985PLC019849 and is situated at 3917 Ganesh Building Nai Sarak Roshan Pura, North Delhi- 110006, and the CD is engaged in the Building and Construction work since 16/01/1985. They had started one project at Karkardoma Delhi as Growth Park in 1997. 3. The Petitioner/Financial Creditor Mr. Saroj Kumar Poddar has submitted that: The Petitioner had given an advance of Rs. 50,00,000 in 1997 for 2,45,000 sq. feet residential project of Growth Park along with two other creditors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submitted by the petitioner that the financial creditor herein was assured that CD was diligently pursuing the enhancement of compensation proceedings pending in Karkardooma Court and that the matter is still pending. The CD has yet to get award and in the agreement, it was confirmed that atleast in total Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rs. Five crores) will be paid to the said three persons against financial debt given in 1997 of Rs. 149,00,000 and the petitioner's share of the above comes to Rs. 1,67,75,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Seven Lacs, Seventy-Five Thousand Only). The GTPL has admitted these liabilities under the head of other long-term liabilities in the Balance Sheets in 2019-20 showing the acknowledgement of debt, annexed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this has shaken the confidence of the Financial Creditor herein and now the financial creditor has no hope that the CD will be able to comply with the settlement agreement dated 28.07.2014. That already the Financial Creditor has waited for more than 22 years from time the amount was first granted to the CD. That in the above view the statutory demand notice was issued by Financial Creditor upon Corporate Debtor on 15.05.2021 and the same has been received by the Corporate Debtor, annexed as Annexure-4 at page 40 to 52 of the Petition. That in reply to the statutory demand notice as mentioned above, the CD vide its letter dated 28.05.2021 has acknowledged the financial debt of Rs. 1,67,50,000 and has shown his inability to rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. 5. It is further submitted that, the Petitioner has filed this petition on 25.08.2021 and after perusal of the records annexed with this petition, this Bench vide order dated 31.01.2022, raised the query and asked the Petitioner to furnish the documents supporting the disbursement of loan in the year 1997 to the Corporate Debtor and satisfy this bench on the issue of Limitation. 6. The Petitioner has filed certain documents in the form of supplementary affidavit on 21.03.2022 and annexed two letters date 03.01.1997 and 13.09.2002, and annexed a Memorandum of Understanding executed on 03.01.1997 between the Petitioner and the Respondent, where the loan amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) has been agreed to give to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Information Utility, as per section 7(3)(a), nor the Petitioner has filed the certified copy of entries in the relevant account in the bankers' book as defined in clause (3) of section 2 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and nor an order of a court or tribunal that has adjudicated upon the non-payment of a debt, where the period of appeal against such order has expired, as per Regulation 2A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process For Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Hence on the point of proof of debt and limitation the petitioner has failed to establish a case on merits. 9. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, in our considered view we find no case on merit and the petition stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
