9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LS Transportation Networks Limited. The Financial Facility extended by Corporate Debtor was to one of the subsidiary of the ILFS and it is not far to seek that since under RBI Directives ILFS could not directly lend the amount to its subsidiary the said mechanism was adopted which has been found so by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority in the facts of the present case has rightly exercised its discretion in not admitting Section 7 Application. It is also to be noticed that under the order passed by this Tribunal in Order dated 15.10.2018, the actions against ILFS was prohibited - there are no error in the Order impugned - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal ( AT ) ( Insolvency ) No. 296 of 2023 - - - Dated:- 13-4-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any financial facility to its subsidiary this mechanism was adopted and in fact it was not genuine loan transaction rather a transaction to lend amount to subsidiary of the ILFS. 5. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties has rejected Section 7 Application by the Impugned Order against which this Appeal has been filed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that under Section 7 Application, the Adjudicating Authority has to only find out debt and default and in the present case, debt and default is proved hence the Adjudicating Authority ought to have admitted Section 7 Application. It is submitted that judgement of the Hon ble Supreme in Vidharbha Industries Power Limited Vs. Axis Bank Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrower are both IL FS group. In light of the facts of the case the claim of the Petitioner should be set-off between the IL FS group companies. 18. The principle set out above applies squarely to the present case. The ability of the Respondent to recover due amounts from ITNL and ITNL entities is restricted due to the moratorium imposed by the NCLAT in unconnected proceedings. Since the Respondent cannot receive the amount from ITNL, MP Border and SSTL, there is no question of it being required to make payment of the amount of IFIN. Therefore, in light of the serious dispute relating to whether any default has been committed, the present case is not a fit case for initiating CIRP. 9. We are satisfied that the Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
