Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 10 - 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 - HELD THAT:- There is no denial of the fact that because of the default committed by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ in regard to the repayment of Credit Facility in violation of the sanctioned terms, loan documents, the Respondent No. 1/Bank had classified the accounts of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ on NPA on 30.05.2016. It cannot be ignored that the Respondent No. 1/Bank, after issuing ‘Demand Notice’ and also issued Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and ‘Guarantors’ requiring them to repay the dues before 22.09.2016. A mere running of the eye of the OTS proposal dated 06.12.2018, 12.12.2018, 11.01.2019 addressed to the Chief Manager of the Respondent No. 1/Bank, Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd unerringly pointed out that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ had admitted its liability and had prayed for the OTS of Credit Facility and mooted an abnormal offer of ₹ 8.15 Crores on 11.01.2019 towards the ‘Full and Final Settlement’ of all the ‘outstanding liabilities’ with the ‘Bank’, which was approved by the Bank as per its Sanction Letter dated 22.01.2019 which was accepted by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ on 24.01.2019. But the fact of the matter is that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ had prayed for time till 20.02.2019 for payment of 5% advance sum under the OTS scheme and indeed, the ‘Corporate Debtor’ in accordance with the OTS was to repay the liabilities of the Respondent No. 1/Bank by 30.06.2019. Therefore, in the instant case, the default is on 30.06.2019. It is well settled that it is not for the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ to arrive at the quantum of the outstanding amount due to be paid by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to the ‘Financial Creditor’. It is to be remembered that IBC, 2016 is not a ‘Debt Enforcement Procedure’ - the ‘proceedings’ under IBC are summary in nature and not an adversary one. Suffice it for this ‘Tribunal’ to relevantly point out that the ‘proceedings’ under IBC are not like that of a regular ‘Civil Suit’. As such, the aspects of the exorbitant interest, penal interest, purportedly imposed on the ‘Corporate Debtor’ by the Respondent No. 1/Bank are not gone into by this ‘Tribunal’ in ‘Appeal’. This ‘Tribunal’ taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in accumulative manner, comes to a resultant conclusion that the Debt of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and ‘Default’ committed by it were proved and that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ on being satisfied with the disbursement of various loans to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ by the Bank came to the right conclusion of admitting the ‘Application’ - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
|