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 798 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, SINGLE BENCH, CHENNAIWhether the claim of the Applicants based on an unregistered sale agreement dated 02.08.2016 and claim acknowledgement letter dated 02.08.2016 is admissible as evidence in the absence of entry in the Books of Account of the Corporate Debtor? HELD THAT:- It becomes clear that an unregistered document pertaining to immovable property, which is compulsorily required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, may be received in evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” 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/Financial creditor and the Corporate Debtor represented by the Managing Director and Director. The signatures of the above mentioned Directors and the seal of the Corporate Debtor on the sale agreement and claim acknowledgement letter are genuine, whereas the recitals in the said documents are disputed. However, the said suspended Directors or the Resolution Professional(s) of the Corporate Debtor have failed to substantiate their reasoning with any documentary evidence on the basis of which the claim of the Applicant/Financial Creditor was rejected. 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 Resolution Professional is directed 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 to withdraw the Resolution Plan and constitute the CoC afresh to get the Resolution Plan(s) approved with suitable modifications, as may be required.
|