9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk is well within the limitation period. All sanction letters and loan agreements allegedly have signatures of Sh. Sushil Mittal, who passed away on 28.04.2020 due to COVID - HELD THAT:- There are no force in the argument of the Respondent that the authenticity of the documents of the present case against the Corporate Debtor Company becomes questionable merely because the signing member has expired. As per the documents on record, the loan has been availed by the Corporate Debtor Company, which is in existence. Difference in the amount of Rs. 193,41,71,512.52 claimed by the ATpplicant herein and the amount of award for Rs. 49,44,65,248/- by DRT - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has clarified in its rebuttal that the award by DRT is in relation is in relation to a different case being OA No. 3000/2018 titled as Central Bank of India VS M/s Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd and Others . Further, in any case, the amount of default is much above than the minimum threshold limit applicable to the present case. Conclsuion - The Applicant Bank has been able to successfully establish the debt and default beyond doubt on the part of the Respondent-Corporate Debtor in repayment of its financial debt. The pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.15. It has been added that the Account of the Respondent Company was classified as NPA on account of default on 31.08.2017 and the Applicant Bank issued the notice dated 26.12.2017 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, calling upon the CD and other obligors to pay the defaulted amount. 5. In support of its plea, the Applicant has relied on the following documents: (i) Agreements of Guarantee dated 04.07.2008, 03.05.2010, 07.02.2011, 30.06.2012, 04.09.2012, 17.05.2013, 18.09.2013, 13.12.2013, 23.01.2014, 09.10.2014, 09.02.2015, 19.02.2015, 29.09.2015, 28.10.2015, 05.08.2016, 24.11.2016, 27.01.2017, 06.03.2017, 24.04.2017; (ii) CIBIL report of the Respondent (page 3173-3290); (iii) Copy of the Balance and Security Confirmation Letters (page 2812- 2901); (iv) Sanction Letters dated 16.04.2010, 11.01.2011, 06.02.2012, 16.05.2013, 24.07.2013, 07.12.2013; 01.10.2014, 24.09.2015, 04.08.2016, 27.01.2017, 20.04.2017; (v) Statement of Accounts along with the memorandum of costs (page 2911-3125; (vi) Notice under Section 13(2) SARFESI dated 26.12.2017 possession notice dated 06.04.2018; (vii) Inter-se agreements of consortium between Allahabad Bank Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 14.09.2012, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sain Spinning Mills. 7.3 Further, the assets mortgaged have already been sold via auction pursuant to the order of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. 7.4 The contents of paragraph 2 of part IV of the Application are vehemently opposed and denied. The Applicant has claimed that the total amount outstanding as on 31/01/2020 is Rs. 193,41,71,512.52, which is not true. Moreover, the Applicant, with a malicious intent, has not placed before this court a copy of the order dated 02/03/2020 of the Hon ble Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) which held that the amount payable to the Applicant shall be Rs. 49,44,65,248/- with an interest on 13.60% p.a. which is in no way equal to the amount alleged by the Applicant in this application. 8. In rebuttal, the applicant has filed a Rejoinder dated 26.09.2023 to the reply filed by the Respondent stating mainly the following: 8.1 The applicant has mentioned the fact of availing of facilities by the respondent from the year 2004 onwards in its petition as well at page 42. Moreover, the applicant is ready to place on record any document as this Tribunal directs. However, it is worthwhile to mention that the plea taken by the respondent is complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mainly contended that all sanction letters and loan agreements of Corporate Debtor allegedly have signatures of Late Sushil Mittal, who passed away on 28.04.2020 due to COVID. Hence, the authenticity of the documents is questionable and uncertain. Per Contra, the Applicant has annexed various documents to prove the existence of debt and default on behalf of the Corporate Debtor Company as mentioned in Para 5 of this order. 10. At the outset, we would like to examine whether the present Application is within limitation or not. The Applicant in part IV of its Application has mentioned that the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 31.08.2017. We are aware that the date of NPA classification too serves as the valid Date of Default for initiating insolvency proceedings. In this context, we refer to the recent judgement dated 25.04.2024 of Hon ble NCLAT s in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1589 of 2023 Milind Kashiram Jadhav vs State Bank of India Anr., the conclusions of which are reproduced below: Conclusions: 74. The loan accounts of the Corporate Debtor were officially classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on September 27, 2019, following 90 days of non-payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authenticity of the documents of the present case against the Corporate Debtor Company becomes questionable merely because the signing member has expired. As per the documents on record, the loan has been availed by the Corporate Debtor Company, which is in existence. 12. As regards the argument of Respondent regarding difference in the amount of Rs. 193,41,71,512.52 claimed by the Applicant herein and the amount of award for Rs. 49,44,65,248/- by DRT, the Applicant has clarified in its rebuttal that the award by DRT is in relation is in relation to a different case being OA No. 3000/2018 titled as Central Bank of India VS M/s Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd and Others . Further, in any case, the amount of default is much above than the minimum threshold limit applicable to the present case. 13. Thus, in terms of the abovementioned discussion, we find that the Applicant Bank has been able to successfully establish the debt and default beyond doubt on the part of the Respondent-Corporate Debtor in repayment of its financial debt. 14. In the sequel to the above and the given facts and circumstances, the present Application being complete and the Applicant having established the default on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
