Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1608 - Tri - Companies LawCorporate insolvency process - cheques dishonored - Held that:- We agree with the Adjudicating Authority that proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was initiated due to dishonour of cheque and the same cannot be a ground to reject the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, there being debt and default. The Appellant while referring to letters, money receipts, demand promissory note, other relevant documents, including cheques have taken plea that they have been shown as security towards loan amount paid on different dates as detailed in the appeal. According to the Appellants, pursuant to oral agreement between the parties, the loan amount has been taken and there is no stipulation of any specific date of re-payment. However, it is accepted that payment is due to the 'financial creditor' and cheques presented by the Appellants were dishonoured. One of the plea taken by the Appellants that pursuant to oral understanding/ agreement between the parties, the terms for repayment of the loan was to be renewed/ restructured with effect from 31.3.17 and therefore the question of default in making re-payment does not arise. However, in absence of any such ‘agreement’, no such plea be accepted. Submission that Form 1 was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 and Rules framed there under cannot be accepted as we find that application under Section 7 was filed by authorized representative of ‘financial creditor', namely, Mr. Chinmoy Guchhait, Director. Next contention that particulars of security etc., were to be given in Part V of Form No. 1, including order of court, if any, but it has not been shown cannot be accepted as the particulars as mentioned therein are not applicable in the present case. For example, if no order has been passed by any Tribunal or Arbitration Panel or any suit is pending, the question of giving details of such case does not arise. The 'financial creditor' rightly mentioned the word 'not applicable' against the relevant column. As we find no illegality in the impugned order and the application preferred by Respondents ('financial creditors') being in order and complete, the question of interference with the impugned order dated 12th April, 2017 doe arise
|