9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement and is reflected in the balance sheet of 2010-11. The amount reflected in the balance sheet of year 2010-11 under the heading long term borrowing have been increasing in subsequent years, which indicates that interest component was added in subsequent balance sheets, which fully supports the case of the Financial Creditor that loan was with interest @ 12%. The plea of the Appellant that amount of Rs.10,01,16,474/- reflected in the balance sheet of 2016-17 and 2017-18 are amount which was given by loan to the Corporate Debtor by Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. is rejected, which is false and misleading plea. Time limitation of application filed - Appellant submits that there is no acknowledgement in the balance sheet of the year 2017-18, since name of Respondent No.1 Financial Creditor is not reflected in the balance sheet, hence, there is no acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and Adjudicating Authority committed error in reading the acknowledgement - HELD THAT:- The mere fact that name of Respondent No.1 is not mentioned as creditor in subsequent balance sheet including the balance sheet of 2017-18 is of no consequence, since the name of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filed by the Financial Creditor (Respondent herein). 2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are: (i) The Corporate Debtor - Pooja Land and Premises Pvt. Ltd. is a registered Company, incorporated on 07.02.2007. The Financial Creditor - Manjulaben Mahdulal Karelia has extended loan to the Corporate Debtor of Rs.2 crores on 23.06.2010. Apart from Financial Creditor, her other family members also granted loan to the Corporate Debtor. A Loan Agreement dated 31.12.2010 came to be entered into between the Respondent Financial Creditor and other family members with the Corporate Debtor, which Loan Agreement contemplated payment of interest @ 12% per annum compounded annually. The loan was repayable along with interest on or before 23.06.2020. (ii) The Corporate Debtor refunded certain amount to other members of the family namely Krishna Karelia and Dilip Karelia in the year 2015. However amount of Rs.2 crores, which was disbursed by Respondent on 23.06.2010 was not refunded. The Financial Creditor issued Notice dated 18.12.2019 to the Corporate Debtor, claiming an amount of Rs.2 crores, principal amount and Rs.3,92,49,406 as interest. The Notice required the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debt was also within limitation. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order admitted Section 7 Application. Challenging the order, this Appeal was filed by the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. 3. When the Appeal was heard on 01.11.2022, the learned Counsel for the Appellant prayed for time to file an additional affidavit seeking details of amount paid of Rs.10,01,16,474/- as reflected in the balance sheet of 2017- 18. In response to the order dated 01.11.2022, an additional affidavit was filed by the Appellant dated 17.01.2023, to which affidavit in reply dated 25.02.2023 has also been filed by the Respondent. 4. We have heard Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Seeshan Hashmi, learned Counsel appearing for Financial Creditor. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the impugned order submits that no debt was due or payable as the Application was filed on 28.04.2020. The Application filed under Section 7 was premature. The Adjudicating Authority arrived at erroneous finding that there is acknowledge of liability of the Corporate Debtor in the balance sheet of 2017-18. The Loan Agreement is insufficiently stamped. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended by Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. to the Corporate Debtor and does reflect the loan, which was extended by the Financial Creditor and her other family members is incorrect. In pursuance of the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by this Court to file relevant documents to prove that loan has been extended to the Corporate Debtor by the Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant has filed additional affidavit, where no document to prove that loan was extended by Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. has been brought on the record. Only document which has been brought on the record are the letters signed by authorised representative of the Corporate Debtor from 29.07.2015 to 04.01.2016, under which request was made to the Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. to make the payment of different amount to one Mr. Vijay Kamdar. The documents filed by the Appellant in support of the alleged loan by Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. is wholly insufficient and Appellant has filed the letters, which does not prove any loan transaction between the Corporate Debtor and Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 Financial Creditor has brought on the record the balance sheet of Romell Real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bey 85,000 85,000 Vijay Bhai 1,500,000 1,500,000 Vivek Dubey 135,000 135,000 ISMF Builders (27,888) Pratha Developers Pvt. Ltd. 3,000,000 3,000,000 38,756,468 6,290,000 Total 50,746,468 31,470,000 9. It is relevant to notice that against the name of the Financial Creditor Manjula Karelia amount mentioned on 31.03.2011 is as Rs.21,662,904 and further in the previous year, no amount was mentioned against Manjula Karelia, which clearly proves that amount reflected in the balance sheet included the interest, since disbursement was only of Rs.2 crores. At this juncture, we may also notice the balance sheets as on 31.03.2014. The balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 refer to long term borrowing of the current year as well as the previous year, which is as follows: Pooja Land and Premises Pvt. Ltd. B, 1st Floor, Eastern Court, Vile Parle (*** *** BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31ST MARCH 2014 Particular Note No Current Year Previous Year Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) EQUITY LIABILITIES Shareholders funds Share Capital 2 205,000 205,000 Reserve and Surplus 3 (28,897,554) (28,692,554) (24,556,848) (24,351,8480 Non Current Liaibilities Long Term Borrowings 4 97,834,545 97,834,545 95,081,053 10. Note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant in the affidavit may also indicate the relevant date with the balance sheet. Relevant documents in support of the loan as claimed by the Appellant Romell should also be given. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional as well as Respondent are also permitted to file the Reply to the Additional Affidavit giving other relevant details regarding the aforesaid amount. List this Appeal on 12th December, 2022. 13. By order dated 01.11.2022, the Appellant was directed to file relevant documents in support of the loan as claimed by the Appellant, which is advanced by the Romell. The Appellant filed affidavit dated 17.01.2023, where to explain the loan from Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., they have stated that it is at the request of the Corporate Debtor, amount between 29.07.2015 to 04.01.2016 was paid by Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. to Vijay Kamdar Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit are as follows: 2. The Corporate Debtor had addressed various letters to Romell Real Estate Private Limited requesting payments to be made on its behalf to Mr. Vijay C. Kamdar. Sr. No. Date Amount (INR) a. 29th July 2015 50,00,000/- b. 8th August 2015 75,00,000/- c. 18th August 2015 75,00,000/- d. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce sheet as on 31.03.2017, which is as follows: POOJA LAND AND PREMISES PRIVATE LIMITED BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31ST MARCH 2017 Particular Note No Current Year Previous Year Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) EQUITY LIABILITIES Shareholders funds Share Capital 2 205,000 205,000 Reserves and Surplus 3 (32,575,612) (32,335,664) (32,370,612) (32,130,664 Non Current Liaibilities Long Term Borrowings 4 100,116,474 100,116,474 15. When the figure of Rs.10,01,16,474/- is continuing as long term borrowings from the balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 and which figure is the same figure, which is reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2015, we fail to see how the loan of Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.10,01,16,474/- is reflected in the balance sheet. In event there is any amount of Rs.10,01,16,474/- loan advanced by Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., the balance sheet ought to have reflected the same, in addition to Rs.10,01,16,474/-. Thus, the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor itself makes it clear that the plea raised by the Appellant that the amount reflected in the balance sheet is not the amount, which was given by the Financial Creditor, rather it is the amount advanced by Romell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no acknowledgement. The submission cannot be accepted, in the balance sheet of 2011-12, name of the creditor along with the amount disbursed to them including Respondent No.1 have been reflected in the column unsecured loans and are subsequently reflected in the balance sheet, which is clear from the extract of balance sheet as noted above. The mere fact that name of Respondent No.1 is not mentioned as creditor in subsequent balance sheet including the balance sheet of 2017-18 is of no consequence, since the name of Respondent No.1 was mentioned as under the unsecured/ long term borrowings in 2011-12, which unsecured loan/ borrowings continued to be reflected in subsequent balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor. We have already noted the plea raised by the Appellant that amount of long term borrowings mentioned in balance sheet for the year 2017-18 is borrowing from Romell Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., which plea has not been accepted for reasons given above. We are satisfied that debt, which was reflected in 2011-12 of the Financial Creditor, continued to be reflected under the long term borrowing and there being continuous acknowledgement, the Application cannot be said to be barred b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application. That being the position, no case for extension of period of limitation is available to be examined. In other words, even if Section 18 of the Limitation Act and principles thereof were applicable, the same would not apply to the application under consideration in the present case, looking to the very averment regarding default therein and for want of any other averment in regard to acknowledgment. In this view of the matter, reliance on the decision in Mahabir Cold Storage [Mahabir Cold Storage v. CIT, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 402] does not advance the cause of Respondent 2. 21. We already having held that in the balance sheet, acknowledgement of debt for the Financial Creditor was reflected continuously from 2010-11 till 2017-18 and the Application, which was filed on 22.04.2020, cannot be held to be barred by time. 22. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that Application filed under Section 7 was premature. When one of the submissions of the Appellant is that Application was barred by time, we cannot accept the submission of the Appellant that Application was premature. The submission that Application is premature, is advanced on the basis of Loan Agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keted portion, which reads as (i.e. 10 years from 23rd June 2010 i.e. on or before 23rd June 2020) . Clause 5 also indicate that the Borrower has right to repay the loan in first five years, i.e. till 23rd June 2015. The above Clauses 4 and 5 when read together, makes it clear that loan could have been repaid by borrower before 23.06.2020 also. A Bank statement has also been brought on the record by the Appellant indicating that payment has been made by the Corporate Debtor to other family members of Respondent No.1 in the year 2015. We, thus, are not persuaded to accept the submission of the Appellant that Application filed under Section 7 of the Corporate Debtor was premature. 25. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Hyline Mediconz P. Ltd. vs. Anandaloke Medical Centre P. Ltd. (2022) SCC OnLine 4286, where this Tribunal held that relevant point for determination of maintainability of the Application under Section 7 is the date of filing. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 224 and stated that the case of the Financial Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
