Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (12) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1834 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURUMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - what are ingredients of Section 7 of Code to be considered, while considering an application filed under section 7 of the Code? - HELD THAT:- Whenever Corporate Debtor committed default, a Financial either by itself or jointly may file an application/ Petition in prescribed form by furnishing record of default in question, suggesting name of Resolution professional to act as Interim Resolution Professional. On being satisfied that default has occurred, application filed is complete, there are not disciplinary proceedings against name Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority may by an order admit the case by initiating CIRP against Corporate Debtor, appointing Resolution Professional, imposing moratorium etc, failing which application can be rejected. It is not in dispute and there cannot be in dispute that the Applicants Banks have disbursed loans in question on various dates as mentioned above. The Banks have tried its level best to regularise the accounts of corporate debtor by various methods like restructuring terms of loans, further finance etc. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to act to the satisfaction of Banks. Therefore, the Banks have resorted various legal remedies available to them under SARFAESI, initiating proceedings before DRT, DRAT by the Banks and the Respondent too has filed criminal cases against the official of Bank and other people. There are serious allegations of fraud and cheating on the part Corporate Debtor in diverting funds of the Company resulting registering a case by the CBI against the personnel of Corporate Debtor. It is a settled position of law that IBC is a codified law with a particular object behind it, in order to provide speedy remedy to resolve the disputes arise in corporate sector - the account of Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA by all consortium of Banks as early as 2010 and onwards, and the efforts made by the Banks to restructure the loans were failed. So far as the contention with regard to laches and limitation is concerned, as raised on behalf of Corporate, it is to be noted that there are various proceedings issued by the Applicant's Banks as soon as accounts of Corporate Bank became irregular and tried to restructure its accounts. Therefore, admittedly, the Accounts of Corporate with the Banks became NPAs right from 2010. It is not the case of the corporate debtor that it has repaid the loan in question but it contends that default in question is not wilful and the Banks are responsible for that situation. Initiation of criminal proceedings by the parties would not bar the Adjudicating Authority to take judicial notice of the issue involved in the case. The Corporate Debtor is admittedly placed insolvent position and the remedies initiated by the Applicants under other acts also would not bar the Adjudicating Authority to entertain the application. Since the Adjudicating Authority has already allowed IA No. 150 of 2018 seeking amendment was already allowed by an order dated 11th July, 2018 and filed amended Application, the allegations with regard to defective application etc as raised by the respondent are no longer tenable. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
|