Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 443 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - scope of IBC - HELD THAT:- The clear cut stand of the 1st Respondent/Bank is that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (as agreed) had failed in its repayment of the balance amount, inspite of repeated reminders given by the Bank/‘Financial Creditor’, in respect of the loan facilities availed by it - It is brought to the fore that the 1st Respondent/Bank/‘Financial Creditor’ had issued a notice to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ on 02.06.2016, as per Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ had not paid the debt sum, despite the lapse of 60 days’ time given to it. The stand of the ‘Appellant’ is repelled by the 1st Respondent/Bank that the total amount of debt granted on 17.06.2011 was ₹ 90 Crores and on 30.03.2015 was ₹ 18.67 Crores and that the amount claimed to be in default was ₹ 78,74,73,945/- as on 31.03.2016 against the ‘Term Loan-1’ and ₹ 4,15,03,499.06 as on 31.03.2016 against the ‘Term Loan-2’, totalling in all, a sum of ₹ 82,89,77,444/- and the total memorandum dues as on 30.06.2019 was ₹ 144,02,51,063.09. Further, the guarantor(s) on 20.02.2018 had executed ‘Balance and Security Confirmation Letters’ for ₹ 78,74,73,945/- in respect of the account of Saptarishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) in respect of the ‘Term Loan Facility’, which clearly point out that there was an ‘Acknowledgement of Debt’, in terms of Section 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Section 3(11) of the I & B Code, defines “debt” meaning ‘a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt and operational debt. Section 3(12) of the code, defines “default” meaning ‘non-payment of debt when whole or any part or instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not paid by the debtor or the corporate debtor, as the case may be.’ Limitation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT:- The Application filed by the 1st Respondent/‘Financial Creditor’ (Punjab National Bank) in July 2019 (vide intimation given by the 1st Respondent/Bank/Financial Creditor’s Advocate through communication dated 18.07.2019 addressed to the Saptarishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[Corporate Debtor]) is perfectly maintainable in Law, of course, well within the period of Limitation. As such, the Contra Plea taken on behalf of the ‘Appellant’ that the Application filed by the 1st Respondent/‘Financial Creditor’ (Punjab National Bank) (under Section 7 of the I & B Code) is barred by limitation is legally untenable and is rejected. In the present case, the 1st Respondent/Bank (‘Financial Creditor’) has proved the existence of ‘Debt and Default’ (vide documents) filed along with the Application under Section 7 of the Code against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and that the conclusion arrived at in admitting the ‘Application’ by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is free from legal infirmities, as opined by this ‘Tribunal’. Appeal dismissed without costs.
|