Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 591 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate insolvency process - Held that:- The claim of the FCs that the FC-1 had granted a loan to the tune of ₹ 31, 66,000/- to the CD on 16-05-2013 and FC 2 had granted a loan to the tune of ₹ 72,32,000/- to the CD on 27-05-2013 on the terms and conditions, enumerated in the Annexures B and B-1, in a very poor light which , in turn, throw its weight more and more not behind the claim of the applicants herein -but-- behind the claims of the CD instead. It may be noticed here that the FCs also placed enormous reliance on the bank statements to show that the CD did receive the amounts, so stated in the resolution dated 16-05-2013 and the resolution dated 27-05-2013, and that too, under terms and conditions, incorporated therein. According to the FCs, since there was clear correlation between the bank statements and the statements, made in the Annexure B and B-1, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the CD had actually received the amounts, so stated in the Annexure B and B-1, and that too, on the terms and conditions, stated therein. Since there was no evidence whatsoever from the side of the CD to show that it ever repaid such loans, there was clear default in repayment of such loans which, in turn, provides this proceeding a robust basis requiring this Authority to initiate CIRP against the CD. I have considered such submission in the light of discussion, made hereinbefore and have already found that all the basic documents , tendered from the side of FCs, fail to establish that the CD had actually accepted the aforesaid loans, agreeing to the terms and conditions, specified in Annexure-B and B-1. Being so, when the primary evidence, pressed into service from the side of the FCs ,failed to show that the CD had actually received the amounts, so stated in the Annexure B and B-1, and that too, only under the terms and conditions, the bank statements, which are evidently in the nature of corroborative evidence only, could not do the role of resurrecting the case of the FCs. In such a situation, no difficulty, whatsoever in rejecting the argument, from the side of FC which structured taking bank statements as its fulcrum. Consequently, the claims of FCs that the FC1 had granted the CD a loan to the tune of ₹ 31,66,000/-on the basis of resolution dated 16-05-2013 and the FC-2 had also granted it a loan to the tune of ₹ 72,32,000/- on the basis of resolution, dated 27-05-2013 on the terms and condition enumerated in the Annexure-B and B-2 and that the CD failed to repay such loans in accordance with terms and conditions, being found untenable in view of materials available on record, are rejected. This proceeding is found devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed.
|