|
Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 68 of 68 Records
-
2020 (4) TMI 154 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Considering the material papers filed by the Petitioner Bank and the facts mentioned, this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that:-
(a) The Corporate Debtor availed the loan/credit facilities from the Financial Creditor Bank(Andhra Bank).
(b) Existence of debt is above Rs. One Lac;
(c) Debt is due;
(d) Default has occurred on 29-6-2012;
(e) Petition had been filed within the limitation period, as the existence of debt due is found in Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor as on 31-3-2017 and the last payment into the account has come on 25-9-2017, whereas this petition under section 7 has been filed on 21-5-2018;
(f) Copy of the Application filed before the Tribunal has been sent to the Corporate Debtor and the application filed by the Petitioner Bank under section 7 of IBC is found to be complete for the purpose of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. Hence, the present IB Petition is admitted with the following Directions/observations. The date of admission of this petition is 13-1-2020.
Thus the present IB petition filed under section 7 of the IBC stands admitted on 13-1-2020 - Moratorium declared.
-
2020 (4) TMI 153 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present matter, the Petitioner Bank in its written submission has made effort to impress upon us that even . the date of default is 30-6-2012, but since the memorandum of deposit of title deeds were executed on 30-10-2010 and further extension of equitable mortgage date is 15-10-2011 then as per the counsel, the limitation period would be twelve (12) years as per article 62 of the Limitation Act and would be applicable from the date of default, i.e. 30-6-2012. Hence, the present petition is filed well within the limitation.
The date of default in the present matter is 30-6-2012 being the date of NPA the limitation would commence from such date and as per the Article 137 of the Limitation Act which prescribe only three (3) years of time while the present LB. Petition was filed on 15-9-2017 before this Bench. Hence, it is clearly time-barred by the limitation.
The present Petition is liable to be rejected based on time-barred claimed/debts.
-
2020 (4) TMI 152 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Validity of Resolution Plan - section 60(5)(c) of the of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It appears that these suspended directors will not get anything out of those Resolution Plans or some other plans, because the debt exposure admitted against this company is around ₹ 64 crore, as to liquidation value of the company, it is only ₹ 21 crore including the property in dispute with regard to High Tension Line passing through the property held by the Corporate Debtor. These suspended directors/allegations are in respect to assumed grievances of the persons, whoever fails to show that worth of each of these companies is more than ₹ 10 crore. The homebuyers, whose suffering he is talking of, they are not present before this Bench, their names are also not known to these suspended directors.
As to Performance Guarantee, it will be dealt with at the time of dealing with the Resolution Plan coming before this Bench for approval.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (4) TMI 151 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Liability of Director of the company - it appears that R1 is the mother of R2. These two are making allegations against each other, by R2 saying that she came into the company only in the year 2016, therefore she cannot be held responsible and R1 saying that she being aged about 80 years, she has not been dealing with the management of the company though continuing as director of the company - HELD THAT:- It is evident that since R2 subsequently resigned as director and Rl has continued as director until before this petition is admitted, the books of the Corporate Debtor must be lying either with Rl or R2. Instead of providing documents, Rl and R2 are not expected to make allegations against each other ignoring their duty to handover the books of the Company to the Applicant on the Application filed on 30.09.2019. Till date, these two Respondents have not provided information in full that has been sought by the RP - On the other hand, the RP says that though already 268 days of CIRP period is over, he is unable to proceed with CIRP because information that is required to proceed further has not come so far. RP further says that ten hearings have been provided to these Respondents, but so far information required for discharging his functions has not come forth from these Respondents.
It is evident that these Respondents have neither produced the books of the company nor at least furnished the information enabling the RP to locate books of the Corporate Debtor - unless appropriate directions are given in this matter, RP will not be in a position to proceed further in discharging his functions - The police authorities concerned are directed to assist the RP in getting information that is required for him to proceed with in discharging his functions as RP of this Corporate Debtor - application disposed off.
-
2020 (4) TMI 150 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - main plea taken by the Appellant, Shareholder/Director of the 'Corporate Debtor' is that no opportunity was given to the Corporate Debtor to address arguments and impugned order of admission was passed on 08-11-2019 without hearing - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on the record to suggest that Mr.Rajesh Narang ('Appellant herein) was not present on that date though, plea has been taken by one of the 'Shareholder' Director of the Corporate Debtor that none appeared for the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, such plea is rejected - On merit also, we find that the total amount sanctioned & disbursed in various tranches from 26-3-2016 to 13-2-2017 by the Financial Creditor and default amount was of ₹ 39,97,98,092.27/-
In any case, the default amount exceeds ₹ 1 Lakh. Even on merit, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of admission dated 08-11-2019.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (4) TMI 149 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the record that the application has been filed on the proforma prescribed under rule 4 (2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with section 7 of the Code. We are satisfied that a default amounting to lacs of rupees has occurred. As per requirement of section 4 of the Code if default amount is one lac or more then the CIR Process would be issued. The application under sub-section 2 of section 7 is complete; and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional.
This petition is admitted and Mr. Umesh Garg is appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional - Application admitted - Moratorium declared.
-
2020 (4) TMI 79 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL — NEW DELHI BENCH
Withdrawal of application - constitution of "committee of creditors" or not - Interim Resolution Professional did not appear even on issuance of SCN - HELD THAT:- In exercise of the powers conferred under rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, we set aside the impugned order dated October 1, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench in KETKI SHAH TALATI FINANCIAL CREDITOR VERSUS KASATA HOMETECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [2019 (10) TMI 1263 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] and dispose of the application under section 7 filed by Ketki Shah Talati as withdrawn - The appellant-Kasata Hometech (India) P. Ltd. (corporate debtor) is released from the rigour of "corporate insolvency resolution process". The "interim resolution professional" will handover the assets and records to the promoter/director of the "corporate debtor" immediately.
The case is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide only the corporate insolvency resolution process cost, which includes fee of the "interim resolution professional" and cost incurred by him, which is to be paid by the appellant within 15 days from the date of such order by the Adjudicating Authority.
-
2020 (4) TMI 8 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL — NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There is a disputed question the of fact relating to payment of "debts" and the purchase order was issued by "joint venture" dated July 6, 2013 relied on by the appellant was issued by the joint venture, i. e., "Prasad-Shreehari (joint venture)" which is not a party to this appeal or was not impleaded as the co-applicant in the application filed under section 9 of the "I and B Code", we are not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
|
