9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken as 30.04.2018. Therefore, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly concluded that the limitation period was extended due to the restructuring of the debt acknowledged on 27.03.2021, thus making the filing of the Petition on 15.12.2022 within the limitation period. The part payments made by the Corporate Debtor post-cancellation of the restructuring plan do not alter this acknowledgment. The Hon ble Supreme Court's order in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [ 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER ], which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes, further supports the timely filing of the Petition. The Honourable Apex Court had issued direction that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any special or general statute. Legal Right Under Sanctioned Restructuring - HELD THAT:- Respondent No.1 exercised its legal right under Clause 7 of the Sanctioned Restructuring to revoke the restructuring upon default, reinstating the original liability plus interest. The Corporate Debtor's failure to meet the restructuring terms led to the revocation, and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates For the Respondent:Mr. Dinkar Singh, Mr. Rohit Singh, Advs. for R-1, Mr. Rajeev K. Panday, Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Mr. Akhilesh Chadha, Advocates for R-2 JUDGMENT (Hybrid Mode) [Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)] The present Appeal challenges the Order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (NCLT) dated 27.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order ) in Company Petition No. 9 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the said Company Petition ) filed by Respondent No.1. The Impugned Order initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Vilson Roofing Product Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporate Debtor ) and appointed Respondent No.2 as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Appellant is a suspended director of the Corporate Debtor. Grounds of Appeal 2 .The Respondent No.1 claims to be the Assignee of Shamrao Vithal Co- operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank ). The Corporate Debtor allegedly defaulted on a secured term loan and cash credit facility advanced by the said Bank. Respondent No.1 asserts that it was assigned the debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the said Bank. 3. Respondent No.1's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintainable. Acting on a default date predating the Sanctioned Restructuring Plan was erroneous. The Hon ble NCLT failed to consider that the restructuring of the loan altered the basis for determining default. The purported date of default prior to the loan restructuring cannot be the basis for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. 4.4. Acknowledgment of Debt : The finding that part payments by the Corporate Debtor constituted an acknowledgment of debt leading to an extension of the limitation period was incorrect. 4.5. Barred by Limitation : The claim of Respondent No.1 is barred by limitation. The purported date of default is 30th April 2018, but the Petition was filed on 15th December 2022, more than three years after the alleged date of default. The finding that the Petition was within the limitation period was erroneous. 4.6. Compliance with Circular : Respondent No.1, asan Asset Reconstruction Company, failed to comply with the Master Circular on Asset Reconstruction Companies dated 10.02.2022. 4.7. Clause 7 Interpretation : The reliance on Clause 7 of the Sanctioned Restructuring Plan for determining the date of default under Section 7 of the IBC was misplaced. 4.8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to Rs 30,33,02,248.17 plus further fees, charges, and interest as per the terms of the loan documents executed with the Assignor Bank. The cutoff date for restructuring was 17.03.2021. In the event of default, the sanction was to be revoked, and the original liability as on the cutoff date plus accrued interest was to be reinstated. Notices and Subsequent Correspondence 9. The Appellant has not disputed the Financial Creditor's letter dated 10.05.2022, advising the Corporate Debtor to clear the overdue amount immediately and comply with the restructuring terms, failing which the Financial Creditor would take appropriate action as per the Sanctioned Restructuring Plan. 10 .Continuous default by the Corporate Debtor led the Financial Creditor to issue a seven-day notice on 21.07.2022 to clear the overdue amount, failing which the restructuring plan would be cancelled. 11 .On 26.07.2022, the Corporate Debtor requested additional time to clear outstanding dues and to avoid cancellation of the restructuring plan. 12 .The Financial Creditor cancelled the Sanctioned Restructuring Plan on 26.08.2022. Consequently, the original liability as on the cutoff date plus accrued interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Right Under Sanctioned Restructuring 23 .The Respondent exercised its legal right under Clause 7 of the Sanctioned Restructuring to revoke the restructuring upon default, reinstating the original liability plus interest. 24. The Corporate Debtor's failure to meet the restructuring terms led to the revocation, and subsequent letters from the Corporate Debtor requesting additional time were not grounds for continuation of the restructuring plan. 25 .In view of the admitted facts, the documentary evidence, and the justified findings of the Adjudicating Authority, the Financial Creditor submits that the present appeal is devoid of merit and should be dismissed in the interest of justice. Appraisal: 26 .Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent, perused the documents, pleadings and reliance placed in support of their case. 27 .Upon reviewing the submissions and documentary evidence, the Tribunal finds that Appellant has not disputed on Key Facts including the classification of the Corporate Debtor's account as NPA on 31.08.2018, the restructuring of the debt by Respondent No.1 on 27.03.2021, modified by a letter dated 30.03.2021, which included the admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... general statute. Legal Right Under Sanctioned Restructuring 30 .Furthermore, Respondent No.1 exercised its legal right under Clause 7 of the Sanctioned Restructuring to revoke the restructuring upon default, reinstating the original liability plus interest. The Corporate Debtor's failure to meet the restructuring terms led to the revocation, and subsequent letters from the Corporate Debtor requesting additional time were not grounds for continuation of the restructuring plan. Compliance with Circular and Other Grounds 31 .The Appellant's contention regarding non-compliance with the Master Circular on Asset Reconstruction Companies dated 10.02.2022 is not substantiated with concrete evidence. Furthermore, the arguments about malicious intent and lack of evidence are unsubstantiated, given the documentary evidence presented by Respondent No.1. Interpretation of Clause 7 32 .Clause 7 of the Sanctioned Restructuring Plan explicitly provides that in the event of default, the Financial Creditor has the legal right to revoke the sanctioned restructuring and restore the original liability as on the cutoff date. The Corporate Debtor's non-compliance with the restructuring terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
