Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1538 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyPayments of claims of other secured creditors - claim of the Applicants is based on an unregistered sale agreement - properly stamped documents or not - acknowledgement letter - admissible as evidence in the absence of entry in the Books of Account of the Corporate Debtor or not? - HELD THAT:- An identical issue as framed above, has come up for consideration before the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the matter of N. MUTHUKUMAR VERSUS M. KARUPAPIAH, P.R. RAJESH KUMAR, S. SATHEESHKUMAR [2018 (2) TMI 2034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein a suit was filed only for recovery of money paid under unregistered sale agreement. In the said case the issue under consideration in the revision petition filed before the Madras High Court was that unregistered sale agreement is not sufficiently stamped and is compulsorily required registration, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence. The Hon 'ble high Court of Madrasa has held that as per Article 5 0) of the Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, the stamp duty for the sale agreement is ₹ 20/- and unregistered sale agreement was written on ₹ 20/- stamp paper, which was held to be sufficiently stamped. In the case on hand the sale agreement dated 02.08.2016 is written on the non- judicial stamp paper of ₹ 100/- which as per Article 5 (j) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is held to be sufficiently stamped and even if the same is unregistered, it is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose i.e. for proving the payment of ₹ 15,00,00,000 (15 Crores) by the Applicant/ Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. This fact is also corroborated by the 'claim acknowledgement letter' dated 02.08.2016. Moreover, this authority has also noted that a communication dated 22.07.2016 was sent by the Managing Director to Indian overseas Bank, which goes to state that the Managing Director has identified an investor, who is willing to pay bank dues and immediately thereafter on 02.08.2016 the sale agreement was executed between the Applicant/finical creditor and the Corporate Debtor represented by the Managing Director and Director. This fact seems to have co-relation with the purpose of execution of the sale agreement. The purpose of sale agreement was the payment of dues of Indian Overseas Bank to the tune of ₹ 15,00,00,000/- (15 Crores), which was agreed to be paid by the Applicant as mentioned in the sale agreement. The exercise under taken by the Resolution Professionals to reject the claim of the Applicants / Financial Creditors is without any basis. Moreover, the Resolution Professional(s) has no adjudicatory power for deciding the issue pertaining to the claim made - the Applicants are held entitled to their claim to the tune of ₹ 15,00,00,000 (15 Crores) as financial debt. This authority takes judicial notice that during the pendency of this Application, the Resolution Plan came to be approved by the COC, which has been filed before this authority under Section 30(6) read with Section 31(1) of the IBC, 2016. In view of this order, the Resolution Professional is directed as follows:- a). to treat the Applicants at par with other unsecured financial creditors and make the appropriate provision for payment to which they are entitled, in consultation with the COC and the Resolution Applicant, and file the supplementary affidavit to that effect before this authority, or b). to withdraw the Resolution Plan and constitute the COC afresh to get the Resolution Plan(s) approved with suitable modifications, as may be required. Application disposed off.
|