9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n', on being dissatisfied with the 'impugned order' dated 15.11.2022, in CP(IB) No. 308 / 07 / HDB / 2022, (Filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad). 2. The 'Adjudicating Authority', ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad), while passing the 'impugned order' dated 15.11.2022 in CP(IB) No. 308 / 07 / HDB / 2022, among other things, at Paragraphs 2 (a) to 2 (j), had observed the following: 2. "Brief facts of the case as stated by the Applicant is as under:- a. That the Applicant (earlier State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur which got merged with the Applicant) along with consortium of lenders on the request of the Corporate Debtor has sanctioned Term Loans including Short Term Loans, Equipment Loans, Demand Loan, ECB Loan and working capital facilities, both fund based and non-fund based for the purpose and the terms and conditions contained in various loan agreements / facility agreements entered into between the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant and other lenders. Further, in order to secure such facilities, the Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned restructured facilities were secured by (1) Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.03.2015 (ii) Personal Guarantee Agreement dated 12.03.2015 (iii) Corporate Guarantee Agreement dated 12.03.2015 (iv) Pledge Agreement dated 12.03.2015 and Power of Attorney (v) Memorandum of Entry dated 12.03.2015 and Declaration and Undertaking dated 12.03.2015 (vi) Trust and Retention Agreement dated 23.01.2015 (vii) Security Trustee Agreement dated 23.01.2015. f. The Applicant submits that at the request of the Corporate Debtor, the lenders have from time-to-time either revised or enhanced or granted additional facilities to the Corporate Debtor. g. The Applicant submits that as on the date of Seventh Amendment to the MRA on 09.11.2020 the following facilities were extended to the Corporate Debtor by the lenders. In Crores Facility Aggregate Limit Facility A-Restructured Term Loan 347.08 Facility B-Rupee Term Loan (ECB) by IDBI Bank 107.64 Facility C-Working Capital Term Loan 124.44 Facility D-Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL) 36.77 Facility E-Cash Credit 1023.50 Facility F-Bank Guarantee and Letter of Credit 4447.16 Facility G-COVID Emergency Credit Line (CECL) 60.25 Facilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , became 'Due' and 'Payable' as on 30.09.2022 and the 'Account' of the 'Corporate Debtor', was 'Classified' as 'Non Performing Asset' on 30.04.2022 and despite 'Opportunity', the 'Corporate Debtor', had failed to place any 'Record', disclosing that there was 'no Debt or Default', as 'Claimed', by the '1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor / Applicant', and 'Admitted' the main 'Petition', 'appointed' the 'Interim Resolution Professional Viz. Mr. Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi and 'declared', 'Moratorium', etc. Appellant's Submissions: 3. Assailing the 'Validity', 'Propriety' and 'Legality' of the 'impugned order' dated 15.11.2022, in CP(IB) No. 308 / 07 / HDB / 2022, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad), filed by the '1st Respondent / Applicant / Financial Creditor' (under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016), the Learned Senior Counsel for the 'Appellant' submits that the main CP (IB) No. 308 / 07 / HDB /2022, was filed on 17.10.2022 and the same was 'Registered' on 18.10.2022 and the 'Notice', was ordered on 26.10.2022, to the 'Corporate Debtor', as per 'Order' dated 21.10.2022, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter of Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. [2022] 8 SCC 352, came to an untenable conclusion, because of the fact that the question of considering the 'Corporate Debtor's objections does not even arise, as none could be placed on record, due to an 'unwarranted haste' of the 'Adjudicating Authority'. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the 'Proceedings', under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, are not to be 'concluded', unless and until, the 'respective parties', are provided with a 'fair' and 'reasonable' opportunity of hearing them. 11. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, adverts to Rule 37 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which enjoins as under: 37. "Notice to Opposite Party: (1) The Tribunal shall issue notice to the respondent to show cause against the application or petition on a date of hearing to be specified in the Notice. Such notice in Form No. NCLT.5 shall be accompanied by a copy of the application with supporting documents. (2) If the respondent does not appear on the date specified in the notice in Form No. NCLT.5, the Tribunal, after according reasonable opportunity to the respondent, shall forthwith procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y before the date of hearing by the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority is obliged to decide the application under Section 7, the Adjudicating Authority has ample jurisdiction to consider any request for reasonable time by a Corporate Debtor for filing a reply. The Tribunal is fully entitle to grant time for filing a reply asked for by the Corporate Debtor on the first date of hearing. Rejecting the request of the Corporate Debtor on the very first day for grant of time to file a reply, cannot be said to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. There can be no dispute that in appropriate case, if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Corporate Debtor is deliberately delaying the matter, the request for grant of any further time to file a reply can be refused. But present is not a case where it can be said that Corporate Debtor was delaying the disposal of the case, since 29.03.2022 was the first date of hearing as indicated in the notice served on the Corporate Debtor on 07.03.2022." 14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant cites the Judgment of this 'Tribunal', dated 20.05.2022, in Yogesh Goswami v. L & T Finance Ltd.& Anr. (vide Comp. App (AT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide." 8. Rule 48 of the NCLAT Rules clearly stipulates service of notice on the other side, pursuant to issuance of notice by the NCLAT in the appeal, regardless of supply of advance copy of appeal paper book prior to the issuance of notice by NCLAT. Further, Rule 52 of the NCLAT Rules categorically states that the judicial section of the registry of the NCLAT shall record, in the "Notes of the Registry" column in the order-sheet, the details regarding completion of service of notice on the respondents. It notes: "52. Entries regarding service of notice or process.− The Judicial Section of the Registry shall record in the column in the order-sheet 'Notes of the Registry', the details regarding completion of service of notice on the respondents, such as date of issue of notice, date of service, date of return of notice, if unserved, steps taken for issuing fresh notice and date of completion of services etc." 9. However, it is pertinent to note that the material placed before us do not indicate that the aforementioned stipulation has been complied with. As per the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, the counsel for the appellant had undertaken a search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and Resolution Process', Proceedings are 'Proceedings in Rem' (as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 (vide Paragraph 82). 19. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the 'Adjudicating Authority', as per 'Order' dated 21.10.2022, had granted two weeks' time to the 'Appellant', to file its 'Reply' to the Section 7 'Application' of the 'Code', and further the 'Notice, as per the 'Respondents', only served on 26.10.2022 and as such the period to file 'Reply would not come to an end, before 9 / 10.11.2022, therefore the 'Adjudicating Authority' was required to adjourn the matter beyond 09.11.2022, rather than setting the 'Appellant Ex-parte' on 04.01.2022. And as such, the 'Order' of the 'Adjudicating Authority', is clearly quite contrary, to the 'First Order' of the 'Tribunal', as well as 21.10.2022. 20. Therefore, the continuation of 'CIRP' proceedings is to be set aside, in view of the fact that 'no reply', was filed, when that too, the time to 'file Reply', had not expired and that the 'Adjudicating Authority', had 'admitted', the 'Petition', in a 'mechanical manner. 21. The Learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the same mandatory, if otherwise, no prejudice is caused. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir & Ors., reported in (2003) 8 SCC at Page 498, wherein at Paragraph 50, it is observed as under: 50. "Furthermore, a provision in a statute which is procedural in nature, although employs the word "shall", may not be held to be mandatory, if thereby no prejudice is caused. (See Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur (1965) 1 SCR 970, State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364, Venkataswamppa v. Special Dy. Commr. Revenue (1997) 9 SCC 128 and RaI Vimal Krishna and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors." 31. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank contends that in all four 'Notices' (Two Notices through 'email' and other Two Notices, through 'Courier / RPAD', were sent, and that the 'Bank', had complied with all the provisions under the 'I & B Code' and 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority') Rules 2016. 32. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, by adverting to Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L & FS Financial Services Limited) along with IAs as item 109; (c) CP No. 308 / 2022 (filed by SBI as item 111), and in reality, the 2nd Respondent in item 108 and 109, was represented and it was contested. Besides this, the '2nd Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', was not represented in other two matters, on the same day i.e., 10.11.2022. Later, on 15.11.2022, the 'Adjudicating Authority', had 'admitted' the 'Application', filed by the '1st Respondent' / 'Bank'. 39. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent points out that, as per Rule 38 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, an 'Adjudicating Authority', is empowered to direct the 'Parties', to undertake 'Private Notice', on the 'Appellant', and in fact the Process, prescribed under Rule 38 (2)(c) of NCLT Rules, 2016, was followed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal'. 40. Apart from the above, it is represented by the 1st Respondent / Bank that the 'Notice' sent by the '1st Respondent / Bank', on 25.10.2022 is in compliance of Rule 38 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and in this connection, refers to Form No. NCLT.5, which specifically indicates, 'Omit if not applicable', meaning that the 'Parties', can 'omit the irrelevant part', and 'su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vide Page 173 of Reply filed by the 1st Respondent - Para 9 in Page 176). (c) Annual Report 2021 - 2022 (vide Page 199 of Reply of the 1st Respondent). 47. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank, refers to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under the Caption 'Facts admitted need not be proved': - "No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions." and contends that, in as much as the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor', had admitted their 'Liability', 'Debt' and 'Default' in the aforementioned documents and as the same was admitted, the same does not require to be proved, the 'Adjudicating Authority', is deemed to 'admit' the 'Application', filed by the '1st Respondent / Bank', and there would not be any reason to stop the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' proceedings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing'. In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since 'right' result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by the Courts. Even if it is found by the Court that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the Courts have held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of 'prejudice'. The ultimate test is always the same, viz., the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing." 50. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent falls back upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Escorts Fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98. The requirement of Section has been complied with in this case. The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in accordance with factual position. In the notice issued, the Postman has made the endorsement. This presumption is correct in law. He had given notice and intimation. Nevertheless, the respondent did not receive the notice and it was returned unserved. Therefore, in our view, there is no obligation cast on the appellant to examine the Postman as assumed by the High Court. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, operates apart from that under the Post Office Act, 1998." 55. Also, this 'Tribunal', points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 496 of 2002 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 570 of 2002), reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353, wherein, at Paragraph 29, it is observed as under: 29. " .....While considering the submissions of learned counsel, it has to be borne in mind that problem in respect of service of summons has been one of the major causes of delay in the due progress of the case. It is common knowledge that the defenda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a 'Corporate Debtor', and as per sub-section 4 (7) of the Code, is to 'ascertain the factum of 'Default', from the records of 'Information Utility' or from the 'evidence furnished', by the 'Financial Creditor'. 60. Where the 'Record' showed that an 'Application' / 'Petition' was preferred on the 'Proforma', prescribed under the Rule 4 (2) of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016', and if an 'Adjudicating Authority', was satisfied, if the 'Default', had taken place, there is no 'illegality', in 'admitting' the 'Application', filed by the 'Financial Creditor', under the I & B Code, 2016. 61. An 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal') is not one, to ascertain the 'Quantum Sum' or 'Default' or to pass a 'Decree', as to how much exact amount is actually / really due to the 'Financial Creditor', as opined by this 'Tribunal'. Further that, an 'Adjudicating Authority', is not to decide a 'Money Claim' or 'Suit'. 62. An 'Adjudicating Authority', is not a 'Civil Court', to determine the 'Violation of a Contract', between the 'Parties', in the considered opinion of this 'Tribunal'. 63. Really speaking, an 'Application' / 'P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whom, it is given on the 'hypothesis' that he is 'circumspect'. 73. This 'Tribunal', appositely points out that, where the 'Legislature', concedes wide 'Discretion', it also, 'imposes', a 'heavy responsibility', as per decision AIR 1933 Sind 49. Assessment: 74. On behalf of the Appellant, it is projected before the 'Tribunal' that the 'Corporate Debtor', had preferred IA No. 1338 of 2022 and IA No. 1339 of 2022, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' in CP (IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, for 'Recall of the Order dated 10.11.2022' and for 'setting aside the 'Ex-parte Order dated 04.11.2022'. 75. Before the 'Adjudicating Authority', the 'Petitioner / Corporate Debtor', in IA No. 1338 of 2022 (Filed against the '1st Respondent / State Bank of India', under Rule 49 (2) r/w. Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016), had among other things at Paragraph 6, had averred the following: 6. "That the Corporate Debtor has inadvertently missed the notice issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal and the same was not done to evade the proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Corporate Debtor is actively contesting matters before this Hon'ble Tribunal as well as other forums. It is submitted that the Corporate D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their own course and proceeded to pass 'Final Order', in the main CP (IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022. 79. On behalf of the Appellant, it is contended that a 'Private Notice', issued by the '1st Respondent / Bank', is not in consonance with Rule 38 (1) of NCLT Rules, 2016, and further this would not amount to 'sufficient compliance' of Rule 37 of NCLT Rules, 2016. 80. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that Rule 38 (1) of NCLT Rules, 2016, 'any notice or process to be issued by the 'Tribunal', may be served by post [or by courier] or at the e-mail address as provided in the petition or application or in the reply', and further that Rule 38 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, '(2) The notice or process if to be served physically may be served in any one of the following modes as may be directed by the Tribunal;- (a) by hand delivery through a process server or respective authorised representative; (b) by registered post or speed post with acknowledgment due; or (c) service by the party himself [Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-rules (1) and (2), the term "courier" means a person or agency which delivers the document and provides proof of its delivery.]', comes into exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from today and to be filed proof of service before next hearing date. Meanwhile, the counter if any, by the Corporate Debtor to file within two weeks. The matter is adjourned to 04.11.2022." 85. Conversely, it is the contention of the 1st Respondent / Bank that in compliance with the Rule 4 (3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the '1st Respondent / Bank', had sent a copy of the 'Application', to the Registered Office of the 2nd Respondent on 17.10.2022, and that, the 'Application', was sent to the '2nd Respondent', through the 'Official Email Address' of the '2nd Respondent', available in the 'Company Master Data' (vide Pages 13 to 16 of the Reply, filed by the '1st Respondent / Bank' dated 28.11.2022, received in Diary No. 3082 dated 29.11.2022 by the 'Registry' of the 'Tribunal'. 86. It is the version of the 1st Respondent /Bank that the 'Adjudicating Authority' on 21.01.2022 in main CP (IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, had directed the 1st Respondent / Bank to issue 'Private Notice' to the '2nd Respondent', through Registered Post and E-mail and that in obedience to the said direction issued, the 1st Respondent' had issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or transfer. (3) The applicant shall dispatch forthwith, a copy of the application filed with the Adjudicating Authority, by registered post or speed post to the registered office of the corporate debtor." 90. By virtue of Rule 4 (3) of the The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the '1st Respondent / Bank', had sent the copy of the 'Application', to the 'Registered Office' of the '2nd Respondent' / 'M/s. Gayatri Projects Ltd', on 17.10.2022, and further that the '1st Respondent' / 'Bank', had sent the 'Application', under Section 7 of the I & B Code, to the '2nd Respondent / 'M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited', Official email address, available in the 'Company Master Data', and therefore, the '1st Respondent's /Bank's dispatch of the copy of 'Application', filed with the 'Adjudicating Authority', to the '2nd Respondent', through its Official E-mail Address, available in the Company Master Data, cannot be found fault with, because of the latent and patent fact that through 'Electronic' means, as per Rule 4 (3) of the 'The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the same is in 'Order' of 'Sufficient Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Plea', taken on behalf of the 'Appellant', is 'not acceded to', by this 'Tribunal'. 94. Coming to the 'Plea', taken on behalf of the 'Appellant' that a cumulative reading of Rule 38 (2) (c) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and Rule 38 (3) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, a 'Party', can serve a 'Notice', by himself, where a 'Notice', was issued by the 'Tribunal', in the relevant 'Form', and not a 'Private Notice', issued by the 'Party, himself. 95. It is pertinently pointed out that the 'Notice', issued by a 'Tribunal', to the 'Opposite Party', speaks of 'Form No. NCLT.5', which shall be accompanied by a 'copy of the Application' with 'supporting documents', and certainly, the 'Notice', issued by the 'Tribunal' ('Adjudicating Authority' - 'National Company Law Tribunal'), cannot be kept on the same pedestal, in respect of a 'Private Notice', issued by the 'Party'. 96. In the instant case, it cannot be forgotten that the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal'), on 21.10.2022 at 2.30 P.M. (through Video Conferencing Hearing in CP (IB) / 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022), had directed the '1st Respondent' / 'Bank' ('Financial Creditor'), to 'serve Notice to the '2nd Respondent / M/s. Gayatri Projects Ltd.' (' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t service of notice could not be effected within a period of thirty days. 22. Presumption of service, under the statute, would arise not only when it is sent by registered post in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act but such a presumption may be raised also under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Even when a notice is received back with an endorsement that the party has refused to accept, still then a presumption can be raised as regards the valid service of notice. Such a notice, as has been held by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and Another [(2007) 6 SCC 555] should be construed liberally, stating : "17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of criminal law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate Debtor at the address mentioned on 26.10.2022. An email copy has also been filed wherein also Corporate Debtor has been served. Corporate Debtor called absent. Service held sufficient. Corporate Debtor set ex-parte. For hearing, list the matter on 10.11.2022." 102. Admittedly, the 'Adjudicating Authority', had posted the matter on 10.1.2022, after setting the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor', 'Ex-parte', on 04.11.2022. When the main CP (IB) / 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, came up for hearing on 10.11.2022, there was 'no appearance', on the side of the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor', and the matter was 'Reserved for Orders', on 10.11.2022, 'giving liberty to the 'Financial Creditor' ('1st Respondent / Bank'), to file written submissions, not exceeding 5 pages within 3 days'. 103. It transpires that, only on 15.11.2022, the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('NCLT', Hyderabad Bench - II), passed an 'Order of Admission' of the 'Application', in CP (IB) / 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022 (filed by the '1st Respondent' / 'Bank' ('Financial Creditor). 104. In view of the above factual scenario, the 'Contra Plea', taken on behalf of the 'Appellant' that there was no opportunity / enough opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent / Corporate Debtor' on 17.10.2022, and the same was delivered on 18.10.2022, which fact was not pointed out by the 'Appellant'. No wonder, the 'compliance of Statutory Rule requirement (made by the 'Central Government'), to be followed by a 'Stakeholder' / 'Litigant', has the 'Force of Law', in the considered opinion of this 'Tribunal'. 110. It is pointed out that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), received the assent of the Present on 28.05.2016 and was published in the Gazette of India, Ext; Pt. II, S.1 dated 28-5-2016. 111. As a matter of fact, the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (made by the Central Government in exercise of powers, conferred by Section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013), came into force on the date of publication in the 'Official Gazette' (vide G.S.R.716 (E) dated 21-7-2016, published in the Gazette of India, Ext., Pt. II, S 3 (i), dated 22-7-2016. Adjudicating Authority: 112. Section 5 (1) of the I & B Code, 2016, defines, an 'Adjudicating Authority', for the purpose of this Part (Part II), meaning 'National Company Law Tribunal', constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013 (8 of 2013). Appellate Tribunal: 113 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank' ('State Bank of India'), in respect of the 'Balances', relating to 'Seven Account Numbers' of the '1st Respondent / Bank' (State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch - 9103). 119. In the Reply of the 'Authorised Signatory' of the '2nd Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', dated 08.10.2022, addressed to the '1st Respondent' / 'Bank' (vide Page 173 at Page 175 of the '1st Respondent / Bank's Appeal Paper Book dated 29.11.2022 - Diary No.3082'), it is mentioned at Paragraph 5 (e) and (f), as under: e. "We have receivables of about Rs.374/- crores from our current projects which receivables got struck with various government departments and others. Due to COVID-19 pandemic situation, there are no regular operations being carried on and there is a delay in receivables from various state governments and NHAI, because of which we are facing severe cash flow mismatch and they are finding it difficult to pay crucial dues from March 2021. Despite such difficulties, we are making all efforts to regularize the NPA status. f. We further bring to your attention that in view of the current financial crunch being faced by the Company, the Company and its promoters have sought for investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
