Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy 2021 2021 2021 (5) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 177 Records

• 2021 (5) TMI 348 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Corporate Applicant failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The 'debt' and 'default' on the part of the Corporate Debtor is proved and under these circumstances, this Application as filed by the Applicant under Section 10 of IBC, 2016 is required to be admitted under Section 10(4) of the IBC, 2016.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 339 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - impleadment of respondent - approval of resolution plan - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that, the Applicant on approval of the Resolution Plan has failed to implement the Plan within the time frame as stipulated in the Resolution Plan. The order dated 27.02.2019 passed by this Adjudicating Authority has also been assailed before Hon'ble NCLAT, wherein Hon'ble NCLAT vide its order dated 19.12.2019 has partially modified the order. However, Resolution Applicant has preferred a Civil Appeal no. 1920 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the impugned order dated 19.12.2019, so passed by Hon'ble NCLAT - by following the "Doctrine of merger", the order passed by this Adjudicating Authority in IA 224 of 2018 stands finally merged with the common order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.05.2020. Hence, it reaches to the finality.

  In the case of State Bank of India vs. Moser Baer Karamchari Union [2019 (8) TMI 915 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], the question whether the provident fund, pension fund, and gratuity fund come within the meaning of assets of 'corporate debtor' for distribution under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, came for consideration and the Hon'ble NCLAT held that the appellant could not derive the meaning of 'workmen's dues' as assigned to it in section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013, which deals with the 'overriding preferential payments.' There is a difference between the distribution of assets and' priority of workmen's dues, as mentioned under Sec. 53(1)(b) of the I&B Code and Sec. 326(1) (a) of the Companies At, 2013.

  The appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the NCLT holding that the provident funds do not come within the meaning of 'liquidation estate' for distribution of assets under Sec. 53 of the I&B Code - the prayer so made by the Applicant is rejected as not maintainable.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 322 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH
  

  Approval of Resolution Plan - RP has filed an application alleging preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transactions - alleged transactions in favour of related parties - HELD THAT:- To file an application alleging preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transactions, the RP has to adhere to sections 43 and 46 of the Code read with regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations. Section 43 and 46 envisage that the alleged transactions in favour of related parties should be within two preceding years, while in the case of non-related parties it should be within one year. Further, under regulation 35A the RP has to form an opinion whether there has been any avoidable transaction in the Corporate Debtor company on or before seventy-fifth day of the CIRP commencement date. Thereafter, on or before one hundred and fifteenth day of forming such opinion, the RP shall make a determination that the Corporate Debtor has been subjected to avoidable transaction.

  In the case at hand, the Applicant has failed to provide any date on which the purported avoidable transactions were made. Without any such date being mentioned, no conclusion can be given on whether such alleged transactions were made within the lookback period of two years, as envisaged under sections 43 and 46 of the Code, or beyond the said period.

  The determination to be made by the RP in terms of regulation 35A(2) is an independent determination to be made on the basis of the transactional auditor's report, and the CoC has no role to play in this. Therefore, to that extent, the act of the RP in placing the transactional auditor's report for discussion at the ninth meeting of the CoC was not proper. The IBC and the regulations envisage no such role for the CoC. The CoC's role is limited to granting approval for the appointment of the auditor and fixing the fee, and not to an analysis of the transactions. The latter, being a creditor of the corporate debtor, will be an interested party. Therefore, any resolution by the CoC will have the effect of influencing the RP in determining whether the transactions fall within the boundaries of avoidance transactions fit enough to file applications before the adjudicating authority for consideration. The RP cannot be permitted to ride piggyback on the CoC's decision.

  The facts and circumstances of the present application point only to one inescapable conclusion, that the application has been filed by the RP only to avoid any adverse scrutiny by the IBBI. That reason is not good enough to overcome major lacunae that the present application suffers from - The application does not deserve any consideration.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 321 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted liability and that the documents submitted by the operational creditor are enough to establish the debt upon the corporate debtor and hence the contentions made by the corporate debtor cannot be relied upon. Also, they defaulted in repaying the debt amount which is more than the threshold of ₹ 1,00,000/- to each individual operational creditor. Hence, all the requisite conditions for admission of a petition under Section 9 have been found to be fulfilled and therefore, this petition deserves to be admitted.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 319 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
  

  Maintainability 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:- It is a fact that the Financial Creditor has supplied the material as per the purchase order issued by the Corporate Debtor. Due to non-payment as per the terms of the invoice, the Financial Creditor herein has converted the due amount into a loan and accordingly the Loan Agreement has been entered into between the parties on 05.03.2018 to repay the amount claimed to be in default in twelve (12) equal instalments commencing from 05.03.2018.

  The present Financial Creditor has supplied the goods as per the purchase order issued by the Corporate Debtor. However, the amount due under the purchase order issued by the Corporate Debtor was not paid even though the goods were supplied as per the purchase order issued by the Corporate Debtor. In view of the default, both the parties have converted the due amount into a Loan Agreement on 05.03.2018 repayable in twelve (12) instalments starting from April, 2018 to March, 2019. Thereby, the operational debt has become financial debt in view of the Agreement entered into between the parties.

  The Applicant filed the application under Section 7 as subsequently Loan Agreement entered into between the parties for repayment of the due amount. As such, the contention of the Corporate Debtor that it is an amount was due only for supply of goods is untenable and cannot be taken as stand for dismissing the application. Taking into account, the subsequent developments in the matter which was agreed for by both the parties.

  There is a financial debt which was due and not paid. Accordingly, the application has been admitted - Moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 318 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Classification of applicant - unsecured creditors or not - Direction to opponent to rectify the erroneous classification of claim of Applicant as 'Unsecure' and categorize the same as 'Secured' - time limitation - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it is found that on 5th July 2019, the liquidator classified the Applicant as Unsecured Financial Creditor in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor and in view of Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the creditor may appeal before the Adjudicating Authority against the decision of the liquidator within 14 days on receipt of such decision. However, the present application is filed after around 551 days - The instant application is admittedly filed in much belated stage.

  In view of such express provisions of section 77(3) of the companies Act, 2013 and Regulation 21 of the Liquidation Regulation, the Liquidator, acting in accordance with the provisions of Section 77(3) of the Companies Act and Regulation 21 of the Liquidation Regulations, is bound to reject the claim submitted by the Applicant as a secured claim - While filing the instant application, the Applicant has miserably failed to explain the reason of delay in filing the instant application and also not prayed for any condonation of delay for the same.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- That apart, it is also admitted fact that Applicant is always attending the CoC meeting being the member of the CoC constituted in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor and the liquidator in all its meeting reported all the developments in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor and also inviting suggestions from the members of the CoC on various aspects of the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor, however the Applicant did not raise any objection. Thus, the Applicant cannot take to plea that he is not aware of the fact that he is classified as unsecured creditor. Instead of going into further detail of the matter, the fact remains that even after having the knowledge with regard to the classification as unsecured creditor, the Applicant has not taken any steps and filed instant application almost after 551 days, when Code provide that an appeal has to be filed within 14 days after rejection of the claim by Liquidator. Therefore, the application is barred by limitation.

  Under such circumstances, if the application of the Applicant will be allowed ignoring the specific Rules and Regulations of the Liquidation. In that event, the very sanctity of those provisions will be diluted and in that event there is every likelihood that number of application will come before this Adjudicating Authority for the same - application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 317 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
  

  Seeking of hearing - unsuccessful Resolution Applicant claims that they are not only a necessary party but also a proper party and is required to be heard while disposing of application for approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in various judgments has noted that a view has to be taken on a liberal side. This Adjudicating Authority is not hesitant to say that the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant i.e. Applicant is not only a necessary party but also a proper party for adjudication of the lis involved between the parties.

  It is not out of place to mention that this Bench has a doubt on the legal point whether an Asset Reconstruction Company can be a Resolution Applicant or not. This aspect of question of law can also be cleared by the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant or any person once they are impleaded as a party apart from various other issues with regard to the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC and its minutes can also be brought on record for perusal of the Adjudicating Authority at the time of approval of the Resolution Plan.

  Application allowed by impleading the Applicant as proper and necessary party - List TA No. 537/2020 on 05.05.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 315 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Condonation of delay of 796 days delay in filing the claim before the Liquidator - Regulation 39 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - HELD THAT:- Section 40 of the I&B Code, 2016 mandates the Liquidator to record the reason in writing for rejection of the claim and the same is also required to be communicated to the Applicant. In relation to his decision of admission or rejection, the Liquidator is required to communicate to both the creditors and the Corporate Debtor within seven days of such admission or rejection of the claim. As against the rejection of the claim, Section 42 of I&B Code, 2016 provides for a time window of 14 days upon receipt of such decision to the creditor to file an appeal to the Adjudicating Authority against the said decision of the Liquidator - Further, it may be noted that under Regulation 44(1) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Liquidator is directed to liquidate the Corporate Debtor within one year from the date of commencement of the liquidation proceedings and Regulation 44(2) stipulates that, after the expiry of one year, the liquidator shall file an application to the Authority to continue the liquidation period along with a report and explain why the liquidation has not been completed.

  In view of the IBC, 2016 being a time bound process as well as the Learned Liquidator being under a compulsion to complete the liquidation process within a period of one year from the date of commencement of liquidation, the application is dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 314 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - High Seas Sale - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear that projecting this High Seas Sale Agreement as the source document by the Applicant their claim as Financial Debt and the Applicant claiming themselves to be the Financial Creditor is misconceived and we are not inclined to treat this transaction as Financial Debt.

  The Corporate Debtor have obtained a Letter of Credit for the payment of the said amount opened in Corporation Bank which is said to have been honoured. Since there appears to have been a dispute between the parties they referred the matter to the sole Arbitrator and an award had been passed in favour of the Applicant which is appealed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the appeal was dismissed and some email communication is seen to have been exchanged between the parties with a view to settle the claim - As may be seen from the nature and characteristics of the transaction governed by the said High Seas Sale Agreement such transaction cannot be re-christened as Financial Debt.

  As evidenced by the source document namely High Seas Sale Agreement, written submissions and pleadings, the Applicant cannot be treated as Financial Creditor and there is no Financial Debt, this application is liable to be dismissed.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 313 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Service of notice - HELD THAT:- The notice of summons issued to respondent was returned with the endorsement "left". Hence notice by way of publication was ordered. As per the order of this Tribunal dated 10.02.2021, the operational creditor was directed to take fresh notice to the respondent in the leading newspapers and same was effected in leading newspapers one in English and another in vernacular Tamil both dated 26.02.2021. Inspite of this, the Corporate Debtor remained absent. On 23.03.2021, the respondent was called absent and set ex-parte.

  Upon perusal of pleading, documents and submission, this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that debt and default has been established by the Operational Creditor - application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 312 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors or not - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Till the date of this order, no payment was made by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant/Operational Creditor.

  All other requirements is complied with, which are required for a complete application - Application is admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 311 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The period of limitation prescribed under section 137 of the Limitation Act is 3 years - In the present case, the debit notes raised by the Corporate Debtor is more than 3 years from the date of filing this application on 24.10.2019 and last payment received from the corporate debtor on 23.02.2016. Even, in this case, the Operational Creditor has not filed condone delay in filing application on the cause of action.

  By taking into consideration the facts, this application is hit by the limitation - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 310 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- In the Purchase Order dated 19.10.2018 enclosed at Page 13 of the application, it is clear that the Respondent placed a Purchase Order for a sum of ₹ 62,31,780/-. On perusal of the Purchase Order, it clearly shows that there is no Clause mentioned in respect of interest for the delayed payments - As per the Purchase Order also, it was mutually agreed between the parties that the materials plus or minus 5% shall be adjusted after transactions. The Applicant failed to quantify the "debt amount" and "default".

  Thus, it is clear that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties - In the matter of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that all that the Adjudicating Authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is a mere bluster.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 309 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Condonation of delay in submitting the claim before the Liquidator - direction to Liquidator to accept the claim of the Appellant and grant such other further orders which are deemed fit - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted here that the provisions of IBC, 2016 mandate that the Claimants are required to submit the claim to the Liquidator in such form and in such manner along with such supporting documents as specified by the Board. Thereafter, upon submission of the claim, the Liquidator is required to verify the claims within the time limits specified by the Board and in this connection referring to the relevant Regulations namely, IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and more specifically under Regulation 30, the Liquidator is required to verify the claim submitted within a period of 30 days from the last date of receipt of the claims and may either admit or reject in whole or part as the case may be of such claim. Section 40 of the I&B Code, 2016 mandates the Liquidator to record the reason in writing for rejection of the claim and the same is also required to be communicated to the Applicant.

  It may also be seen that the Applicants during the CIRP period also has not preferred to file a claim before the IRP/RP and as per the provisions of IBC, 2016 the Applicant ought to have filed the claim before the Liquidator at least after the commencement of the Liquidation proceedings, immediately after the public announcement was made of, which the Applicant is very much aware of.

  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave -Vs- Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. & Another [2019 (9) TMI 1019 - SUPREME COURT], in relation to the aspect of limitation has restated the well established and well settled principle that "there is no equity about limitation", this Application cannot be entertained.

  In view of the IBC, 2016 being a time bound process as well as the Learned Liquidator being under a compulsion to complete the liquidation process within a period of one year from the date of commencement of liquidation, the application stands dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 308 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, though there is an authority letter issued by other partners of the firm (page 40), it does not bear any date in order to make out as to whether the said authorisation is given prior to the issuance of demand notice. In absence of such vital information i.e. the 'date' on which such authority letter is/was executed, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the demand notice is/was issued on the basis of the authority letter. In the result, the application so filed gets vitiated.

  The petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 307 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
  

  Seeking release of title deeds before the CoC of the respondent - title deeds of the assets/rights of the Corporate Debtor - Resolution Applicants are not banking company, but a private organization, while the Financial Creditors have facilities to securely hold the same under safe custody - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal was constrained to summon the Resolution Professional as well as the Financial Creditors. They were asked to produce original title deeds. Today, they were present before the Tribunal along with the original title deeds as directed by the Tribunal. The Resolution Professional and the Financial Creditors have represented their respective cases. The Financial Creditors have submitted that the holding company too is under CIRP and they have apprehension that if the original title deeds are handed over to the successful Resolution Applicant, he may dispose of the properties in question, wherein there is charge for holding company, which is under CIRP.

  The Financial Creditors are directed to hand over the original title deeds to the successful Resolution Applicant in respect of lands at Bhoothpur and Vadodara and also to give No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of Resolution Applicant as provided in the Resolution Plan, and to release pledge of shares - successful Resolution Applicant shall not dispose of/alienate the properties of the Corporate Debtor without prior and specific order of this Tribunal, in order to protect the interest of the Financial Creditors and all the stakeholders.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 306 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Liquidation process - priority of settlement of claim of creditors - Financial Creditors or not - prior to the commencement of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, the maturity date of the subject CCCDs has long expired - consideration of CCCD holder as Financial Creditor or other Creditor/stakeholder? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has issued a letter to AMW Auto Component Limited on 28.07.2016, whereby the Applicant confirmed the role over of the CCCDs on or after 01.07.2017 on the request made by the Corporate Debtor (Auto Component Limited) with respect to CCCDs held by Essar Steel India Limited that are compulsorily converted into equity shares of AACL on or after 01.07.2017. All the other terms and conditions of CCCD's will remain same. Admittedly, the same was not converted into equity share till Corporate Debtor went into CIRP. Further, RP in his reply admitted the fact that CCCD was issued primarily to raise capital and not to raise the money by way of a loan/debt. The terms of CCCDs never postulated any payment of interest or repayment of principal, other than for the initial period of 2 years when the CCCDs could be redeemed at the option of the Corporate Debtor until 22.12.2013. Even if it is assumed for the time being that it is not a loan/debt, then even it attracts interest for the initial period of 2 years when the CCCDs could be redeemed at the option of the Corporate Debtor.

  Evidently, provisions of the IB Code, categorically recognises that a debt disbursed against the time value of money and includes any amount raised by debtors (Corporate Debtor) pursuant to any note purchase facility or the issue of bonds, notes, debentures (CCCD), loan stock or any similar instrument would fall under Financial Debt - Further, as per the terms given in the Certificate, it provides that an IRR at the rate of 9% face value of the debentures from the date of issue to the date of conversion. That further meets all the requirements to be classified as 'Financial Debt' under the IB Code. That apart, CCCD continue to be recorded as debt in the books of the Corporate Debtor and have not been converted into equity till date (page No. 53 of the application). It can be seen from the Second CoC meeting that CCCD continue to be reflected in the books of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, it is an admission of debt liability of the Corporate Debtor towards AMNS.

  The debenture holder of GCCD will be considered as Financial Creditor under the IB Code - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 305 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Failure to pay outstanding salary dues to the employees - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - no sufficient proof submitted by Corporate debtor with regard to their claim - HELD THAT:- The arguments made by the Corporate Debtor is that incurring of losses due to the failures in managerial decisions and downfall in the business area of the Corporate Debtor had added more impact on the financial position of the Corporate Debtor and faced numerous difficulties to arrange funds and pay salaries to its employees. The counsel has not submitted any proof that they raised this service issues in response to Form-3 notice or demand notice nor thereafter. It appears to be an afterthought that they are raising this issue in their counter. After perusing the records, we are convinced that Operational Creditor has not received his dues from the Corporate Debtor and the submissions made by the Corporate Debtor in this regard appears to be after thought and was not submitted by any documentary evidence.

  The Operational Creditor is yet to receive his salary dues from the Corporate Debtor. The submissions made by the Corporate Debtor is not convincing and accordingly the application for CIRP of the Operational Creditor has been admitted.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 279 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time limitation - service of notice - HELD THAT:- The notice was not delivered to the Corporate Debtor. It has been mentioned in the track-report "Out for delivery." In-short, there is not clear and convincing evidence produced on record by the Operational Creditor to prove the fact that before filing this application against the Corporate Debtor, the demand notice under Section 8 of the IB. Code was being served. For want of such evidence, it is held that this application is not maintainable.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is a time barred debt because, according the Operational Creditor himself, the debt was due on 23.01.2013 when default occurred. This application is filed three years beyond that period and hence, it is time barred.

  This application is not maintainable on two grounds that there is no evidence of service of demand notice under Section 8 of the IB. Code and the debt is time barred - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 277 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - Assignment of debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner being the assignee under the assignment deed dated 30.03.2019 and 05.11.2019 have taken over the loan the term loans of DNSB(original Lender), cash credit facilities granted by DNSB. The said term loan and cash credit loan accounts of the Corporate Debtor were declared as NPA as on 31.01.2019 and 31.03.2019. The Petitioner post assignment of debt issued Recall Notice dated 10.01.2020 to the DNSB demanding the outstanding liabilities of ₹ 8,60,09,164.14/- in the term loan and outstanding dues of cash credit dues of ₹ 27,83,07,159.48/-. The Corporate Debtor filed its reply admitting the liability and granted loan by the Petitioner by the DNSB which has assigned the Petitioner herein and further requested the time of 6 months for the repayment of entire monies.

  In view of the admission of liability by the Corporate Debtor on 16.04.2021 and the fact that there is a debt and default of non-payment of amounts under the term loan and the cash credit facility, both the loan accounts were thus declared as NPA as on 31.01.2019 and 31.03.2019. The Corporate Debtor in its reply sought six months' time to repay the debt, there is no denial of sums borrowed and default of non-payment. This bench is of the opinion that all the ingredients of Section 7 are satisfied and that the amounts disbursed by Petitioner to the Corporate debtor under two different facilities (term loan and Cash Credit facility) remain outstanding, owing to the default of non-payment by the Corporate Debtor. Hence, the Petition is admitted.

  The nature of Debt is a "Financial Debt" as defined under section 5 (8) of the Code. It has also been established that there is a "Default" as defined under section 3 (12) of the Code on the part of the Debtor. The two essential qualifications, i.e., existence of 'debt' and default', for admission of a Petition under Section 7 of the I&B Code, have been met in this case. Besides, the Company Petition is well within the period of limitation. This petition is admitted.

  Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

1 ....23456789