Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 915 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - main contention is relating to pendency of execution of award obtained by Sundaram Finance Ltd. against the Applicant Company and the pendency of Securitisation Application against the Corporate Applicant Company - Held that:- The initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act or the pendency of proceedings before the DRT and execution of Arbitral Award are no grounds for not commencing the ‘Insolvency Resolution Process’, in view of the overriding effect given to Section 238 of the Code. The pendency of other proceedings in respect of the debts due by the Corporate Debtor is not a ground not to admit this Application. Moreover, in view of Section 14 of the IB Code, all the proceedings pending before any other forum including the Debt Recovery Tribunal and City Civil Court will be stayed, if the Application is admitted. The object of the Code is, no doubt, to protect the genuine Corporate Debtors with a view to maximise their value of assets and find out a ‘Resolution Plan’ to revive the Companies. Incidentally, in the process of evolving a Resolution Plan, there is an opportunity for the Corporate Debtor to have a moratorium and thereby delay the other recovery proceedings. But, that is only for a prescribed period of 180 days or for a further period of 90 days, if extended by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, to say that Corporate Debtor with a view to have the benefit of moratorium or with a view to delay the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act filed this Application do not merit acceptance. Another objection raised by the BOI is that the Corporate Applicant did not disclose about the pendency of proceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, factually it is not correct. The Applicant along with the Application gave a list of all the proceedings pending in various Courts and enclosed all the documents pertaining to the litigation filed by or against the Corporate Applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that Corporate Applicant suppressed the material facts and approached this Tribunal with unclean hands. The Application filed by the Corporate Applicant is complete in all respects. The option to recommend the name of IRP is given only to Applicant. No material is placed on record to indicate that IRP is interested in the Applicant Company. There is a right to Financial Creditors to replace IRP in the 1st meeting of Committee of Creditors. In view of the above discussion, this Application is admitted under Section 10(4)(a) of the Code.
|