Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1574 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiating insolvency process - proof of existence of dispute - non service of notice - Held that:- Primarily to sustain the transaction of loan as given by the applicant to the respondent, the applicant seeks to rely on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as entered into between two corporate entities. Curiously the said MOU does not contain a date as to when the MOU was executed. Further the MOU also seems to be not conclusive from the following words as found in the last paragraph of the said MOU as reproduced hereunder: "That the parties has agreed to enter into a detailed exhaustive agreement later on" (emphasis supplied). However no such further agreement as contemplated by the above terms contained in the MOU has been produced before us. Further the applicant as a Non Banking Financial Company is also required to comply with the provisions of Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013 in relation to the loan transaction termed as Inter Corporate Deposit between two companies in relation to amounts made available as loan subsequent to 01.04.2014. In any case the applicant has also failed to furnish the necessary Board Resolution for granting the loan to the respondent all of which literally clouds the transaction of loan itself. Even in relation to the service of notice there seems to be glaring anomaly as both the speed post and courier through which the notice dated 13.01.2017 seems to have been dispatched seems to have not been delivered or delivered at some other place. However Annexure XII which is claimed to be acknowledgement of liability alleged to have been issued by the respondent reflects the same address to which the notices were sent by the applicant but from which address the postal authorities report that the addressee (meaning the respondent) had moved thereby casting a cloud on the application itself as that of collusive as between the parties. Taking into consideration all the above, we are unable to feel persuaded to admit the application
|