9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1032 - AT - IBCMaintainability of application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Financial Creditor has established the existence of a debt and default by the Corporate Debtor in the absence of a formal loan agreement or not - proof of date of default without a written agreement specifying the repayment terms - HELD THAT - It is clear that there was a debt which has been admitted and established with the record of NeSL and default i.e. after the notice was issued on 09.04.2022 by which 30 days time was given to the Respondent to pay i.e. up to 09.05.2022 and these facts were brought to the notice of the Tribunal by way of an additional affidavit dated 15.05.2023. All these facts indicates that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the affidavit dated 15.05.2023 which the Appellant had placed on record with demand notice as well as the record of the NeSL about the amount in default. Since the debt and default both have been admitted and proved the application filed under Section 7 could not have been dismissed. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the present appeal is thus allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Establishment of Debt and Default in Absence of Written Loan Agreement Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under Section 7 of the IBC, a financial creditor may initiate insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor upon default of a debt. The Code does not mandate a written loan agreement to prove debt or default; however, the financial creditor must establish the existence of a debt and default. Precedents have held that absence of a formal agreement does not preclude the existence of a debt if other evidence sufficiently establishes the claim. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal had dismissed the application primarily because there was no written agreement detailing the loan terms, including the repayment schedule. It held that without such terms, it was impossible to determine when default occurred. The Tribunal further observed that no demand notice was shown to have been served and that default occurs only when the loan is not paid after it becomes due, which could not be ascertained here. Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant produced evidence of financial transactions and acknowledged loan amounts through bank statements and NeSL reports. The Appellant also issued a demand notice dated 09.04.2022 recalling the loan and providing 30 days for repayment. Furthermore, the Corporate Debtor admitted liability and non-payment through its representative during the hearing on 16.05.2023. Application of Law to Facts: The Court recognized that the loan was an unsecured financial assistance extended over time, and the absence of a formal agreement does not negate the debt's existence. The demand notice served as a recall of the loan, establishing a due date for repayment. The admission of debt by the Corporate Debtor reinforced the existence of default. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Corporate Debtor did not file any reply contesting the debt or default. The Tribunal's earlier reliance on absence of written terms was challenged by the Appellant's submission that the loan was repayable on demand, as evidenced by the demand notice and NeSL report. The Court found the Tribunal erred in ignoring these facts. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the debt and default were sufficiently established despite the absence of a written agreement, primarily through the demand notice, NeSL report, and admission of liability. Issue 2: Determination of Date of Default and Effectiveness of Demand Notice Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The IBC requires identification of the date of default to initiate insolvency proceedings. The demand notice under Section 7(3) of the IBC serves as a formal communication to the corporate debtor for repayment, and failure to repay within the stipulated time constitutes default. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that since no repayment schedule was agreed upon, the date of default could not be fixed. It also found that no demand notice was served. Conversely, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the demand notice dated 09.04.2022 was on record and provided a 30-day period for repayment, making default effective from 10.05.2022 onwards. Key Evidence and Findings: The NeSL report dated 11.05.2022 recorded the outstanding amount and specified the date of default as 10.05.2022. The demand notice was filed as part of an additional affidavit dated 15.05.2023 before the original order was reserved. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that in absence of a fixed repayment schedule, a demand notice recalling the loan creates a due date. Failure to repay by that date constitutes default. The NeSL report corroborated the date and amount of default. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal's failure to consider the demand notice and NeSL report was criticized. The Court emphasized that these documents were on record and should have been considered before dismissing the application. Conclusions: The Court held that the date of default was properly established as 10.05.2022, following the demand notice, and the Tribunal erred in disregarding this evidence. Issue 3: Legal Effect of Admission of Debt by Corporate Debtor Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Admission of debt by the corporate debtor is a significant factor in insolvency proceedings, strengthening the financial creditor's claim. It serves as an acknowledgment of liability and supports the existence of default. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The admission made by the Corporate Debtor's representative on 16.05.2023 that the company was liable and had not paid the Petitioner was noted by the Court. This admission was made during the pendency of the application and was not contested. Key Evidence and Findings: Oral admission recorded in the Tribunal's order dated 16.05.2023. Application of Law to Facts: The Court considered this admission as conclusive evidence of liability and default, reinforcing the Appellant's case. Treatment of Competing Arguments: No counter-arguments or denials were presented by the Corporate Debtor, as it failed to file any reply. Conclusions: The admission of debt by the Corporate Debtor was a decisive factor confirming default. Issue 4: Legal Status of Holding Company and Subsidiary Relationship in Context of Insolvency Filing Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: A subsidiary company is a separate legal entity from its holding company, and insolvency proceedings against a subsidiary do not automatically affect the holding company or vice versa. Precedents affirm the principle of separate legal personality. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Appellant, being the holding company holding 82% shares in the Corporate Debtor, submitted that despite ownership, the subsidiary is a distinct legal entity. The Court accepted this submission and relied on a precedent from the Delhi High Court affirming this principle. Key Evidence and Findings: Ownership structure and affidavit filed by the Appellant clarifying the relationship. Application of Law to Facts: The Court recognized that the insolvency application under Section 7 filed by the holding company against its subsidiary is maintainable and that the subsidiary's separate legal identity must be respected. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant explained the rationale for initiating insolvency proceedings, despite being the holding company, to recover its own dues. Conclusions: The Court upheld the principle of separate legal entities and allowed the insolvency application filed by the holding company against its subsidiary. Issue 5: Weight and Admissibility of NeSL Report as Evidence of Default Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: NeSL acts as an information utility under the IBC, maintaining records of financial defaults. Its reports are considered reliable evidence of default and outstanding amounts. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal failed to consider the NeSL report dated 11.05.2022 which recorded the default amount and date. The Court criticized this omission, holding that the NeSL record is a credible and admissible piece of evidence. Key Evidence and Findings: The NeSL report showing an outstanding amount of Rs. 5,96,33,275/- and default date as 10.05.2022. Application of Law to Facts: The Court relied on the NeSL report as corroborative evidence supporting the demand notice and admission of debt. Treatment of Competing Arguments: No opposition was raised against the authenticity or correctness of the NeSL report. Conclusions: The NeSL report was accepted as valid evidence establishing the debt and default. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the debt and default both have been admitted and proved, the application filed under Section 7 could not have been dismissed." "The Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the affidavit dated 15.05.2023 which the Appellant had placed on record with demand notice as well as the record of the NeSL about the amount in default." "The absence of a written agreement does not negate the existence of a debt or default when other credible evidence such as demand notice, NeSL report, and admission of liability exist." "A subsidiary company is a separate legal entity from the holding company and insolvency proceedings against the subsidiary are maintainable even if initiated by the holding company." Final determinations included setting aside the impugned order dismissing the Section 7 application and allowing the appeal, thereby reinstating the insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.
|
