Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 893 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of section 7 application - Initiation of CIRP - time barred debt or not - Amended Application filed beyond the statutory period of 3 years. The clear cut stand of the Appellant, is that, the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal, had failed to appreciate that there was no authorisation to and in favour of Mr. J. Vijay Kumar, Asst. General Manager, who had signed the amended Petition, indeed, the requirement of specific authorisation, is mandatory, to prefer an Application, under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016. HELD THAT:- An Application, under Section 7 of the Code, is not to be turned down, by an ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’, just on ‘technical grounds’. The reason for inability of a ‘Corporate Debtor’, to pay its ‘Debt’, is not to be looked into, by an ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’, while dealing with an ‘Application’ (Filed by a ‘Financial Creditor’, under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016). To put it differently, the ‘situation / circumstances’, under which, a ‘Corporate Debtor’, could not ‘repay’, the ‘Financial Debt’, need not be taken as a ‘Defence’, in a proceeding, under the ‘Code’ - The ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’, need not wait for the determination, to be made by the ‘Debt Recovery Tribunal’. Although, ‘Debt’, is ‘Disputed’, if the ‘Amount’, is more than ‘Rs.1 Lakh’ (‘Rs.1 Crore’, after ‘amendment’, to the ‘Code’), the ‘Application’, under ‘Section 7’, is ‘maintainable in Law’. It cannot be gainsaid that if a ‘Debtor’, ‘acknowledge’, receiving the ‘Payment’, but, chose to amuse itself, by ‘denying’ the ‘liability’, the ‘document’, would still be ‘one’, that would keep the claim ‘alive’, within the ‘ambit’ of ‘Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963’. Also that, if the ‘Sum’, borrowed by the Respondent, is shown in the ‘Balance Sheet’, it may amount to an ‘acknowledgement’, and the ‘Creditor’, might have a ‘fresh Period of Limitation’, on the date on which, an ‘acknowledgement’, was made. As a matter of fact, the ‘Balance Sheets’ of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, dated 16.08.2014, 27.08.2015 and 27.08.2016, the 1st Respondent / Bank, unerringly points out the ‘admission’ of ‘acknowledgment of liability’, and therefore, it is established on the part of the 1st Respondent / Bank that its ‘Claim’, made in ‘Section 7 Application’, in CP (IB) No. 645 / 7 / HDB / 2018, dated 06.09.2018, but filed on 12.09.2018 (before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’), is ‘not a Time Barred’ one - In the instant case on hand, this ‘Tribunal’, points out on 31.08.2018, going by the ‘Application’ (Filed by the 1st Respondent / Financial Creditor / Bank / Petitioner, under Section 7 of the Code, vide CP (IB) No. 645 / 7 / HDB / 2018), the ‘Sum’ claimed to be in ‘Default’, was Rs.327,03,72,501.81/- (vide Page 76 of the Appellant’s Appeal Paper Book, Vol-I, Form-I, Part IV - ‘Particulars of Debt’, at Page 79), from the ‘Corporate Debtor’ / ‘Vibha Agro Tech Limited’. According to the 1st Respondent / Bank, the ‘Outstanding Sum’, claimed before the ‘Interim Resolution Professional’, is Rs.1,061.15 Crores. One cannot remain in oblivion of a vital fact that to commence a ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ proceedings, by the ‘Financial Creditor’, against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016), the twin requirements, (a) Debt and (b) Default, are to be proved and once they are established, then, the ‘Application’, which is complete in all respects, is to be ‘admitted’, by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’. In the present case on hand, the 1st Respondent / Bank, had claimed a Sum of Rs.327,03,72,501.81/- as ‘Debt’, ‘due and payable’, by the ‘Corporate Debtor’, as on 31.08.2018 (vide in its Application in CP (IB) No. 645 / 7 / HDB /2018, before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’), this ‘Tribunal’, keeping in mind of the ‘primordial fact(s)’ the ‘Corporate Debtor’, had tacitly ‘Acknowledged’, its ‘Debt’ / ‘Liability’, in its ‘Balance Sheets’, for the Year ending 2013-14 dated 16.08.2014, for the Year ending 2014-15 dated 27.08.2015 and for the Year ending 2015-16 dated 27.08.2016, the same being ‘not Barred by Time’, taking note of the entire conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in an encircling manner, and exercising its subjective discretion, comes to a resultant conclusion that the aspect of ‘Debt and Default’, committed by the ‘Corporate Debtor’, have been duly proved by the ‘1st Respondent / Bank’. The impugned order passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (‘National Company Law Tribunal’, Bench – I, Hyderabad) in ‘admitting’ the ‘Section 7 Application’ (Filed by the 1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor / Petitioner), is free from any ‘Legal Infirmities’. Accordingly, the instant ‘Appeal’ fails. Appeal dismissed.
|