Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1983 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) - territorial jurisdiction of this Bench of the Tribunal - Section 7 (5) (a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - whether the petitioner is a financial creditor of the respondent? HELD THAT:- There is no condition stipulated in section 5 of SARFAESI Act 2002 that an asset reconstruction company has to acquire only NPAs of banks or financial institutions. It is concluded that the nature of the financial asset transferred i.e. whether it is NPA or not is not such a material condition so as to make the agreement invalid. We may add here that as per para 2.1 (a) of the assignment deed dated 21.03.2012, (page 237 of the petition) it is stated that the agreement to assign is in consideration of the assignee having deposited the purchase consideration in the Escrow Account and therefore, the assignment is for valuable consideration received. Further, as para 3.1 of the assignment deed dated 21.03.2012, HSBC has represented and warranted to the petitioner that as on the date of the deed and with reference to the facts and circumstances then existing, the loans are non performing assets and have been duly and validily classified as such, in accordance with the guidelines issued by RBI in this regard and all applicable law. The breach of representation regarding the loan being non performing asset is a matter between the petitioner and HSBC - In the present case, the respondent cannot seek to take benefit of whether the assigned debt is a NPA and the matter lies between the petitioner and HSBC. The petition is, therefore, admitted under Section 7(5) (a) of the Code and the moratorium is declared for prohibiting all of the following in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Code.
|