9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of order passed in Section 7 Application of Punjab National Bank. In the proceedings Central Bank of India has been referred to as Respondent No.1; Oriental Bank of Commerce, as Respondent No.2 and Mr. Nipan Bansal, IP as Respondent No.3. The Memo of Parties is not described properly. Accordingly, we direct that the Memo of Parties of the Appeal be corrected, Central Bank of India as Respondent No.1; Punjab National Bank as Respondent No.2 and Mr. Nipan Bansal, IRP as Respondent No.3. 2. Brief background facts giving rise to the Appeal need to be noticed: (i) The Corporate Debtor ("CD") was extended a loan by Consortium of Bank, consisting of Oriental Bank of Commerce and Central Bank of India by an Agreement dated 06.03.2017. (ii) Central Bank of India declared the account of Corporate Debtor as NPA with effect from 30.09.2017. The Oriental Bank of Commerce, the lead Bank also declared the account of Corporate Debtor as NPA on 31.08.2017. Central Bank of India filed OA No.3000 of 2018 before Debts Recovery Tribunal ("DRT") for recovery of its outstanding dues. Oriental Bank of Commerce also filed OA No.3249 of 2019 against the CD. (iii) Section 7 Application was file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd held that both the Writ Petitions have become infructuous. (viii) This Appeal has been filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor on 28.05.2024, challenging the order admitting Section 7 Application. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. When the Appeal was heard by this Tribunal on 29.05.2024, a submission was advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant that two assets of the CD have already been auctioned and an amount of Rs.136 crores have been recovered and Bank is taking steps to recover the dues by means of proceedings under Section 7, which are subject matter of writ petition. Noticing the above submission, this Tribunal passed an interim order on 29.05.2024, directing the IRP, not to take any further steps in pursuance of impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed in CP(IB)No.184/CHD/PB/2018. Notices were also issued. Both Central Bank of India and Punjab National Bank have filed reply. The IRP has also filed its reply. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order admitting Section 7 Application submits that the lead Bank, i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank) had taken steps to restructure the debt and on 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted by the Appellant is wholly insufficient. 7. Learned Counsel for the Punjab National Bank (Successor of Oriental Bank of Commerce) has also filed reply. It is submitted that Punjab National Bank filed Section 7 Application on account of default in payment of the dues by the CD. The CD has committed default in paying its debt towards several facilities extended by Punjab National Bank to the CD in the year 2017. Total dues were Rs.246,30,21,036/-, for which Section 7 Application was initiated. The account of CD was declared as NPA on 31.08.2017. The SARFAESI proceedings were also initiated. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor has committed default and Section 7 Application has been rightly admitted by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. Learned Counsel for the IRP has also filed reply. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 7 Application, which was filed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, was filed in the year 2020 claiming default of Rs.246,30,21,036/-, in which Section 7 Application, a reply was filed and after hearing the parties, the Adjudicating Authority after finding debt and default has admitted Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. The Writ Petition was decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 24.05.2024. The submission made on behalf of the CD before the Adjudicating Authority to defer the hearing of Section 7 Application, has become infructuous. The Adjudicating Authority having found the debt and default, we do not find any error admitting Section 7 Application. The submission of the Appellant that under inter-se Agreement it was only the lead Bank, who could have taken steps, is also without any substance, since lead Bank, i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce has also filed Section 7 Application, which has been admitted by the impugned order. The submission of the Appellant that Section 7 Application was filed for recovery of dues and was not maintainable, also cannot be accepted. It is well settled law that the fact that Financial Creditor has initiated proceedings before the DRT does not preclude them to take remedy under Section 7, which is a special remedy provided under the IBC. 11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.07.2024. On 22.07.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed following order: "1. The application for perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
