|
Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 128 Records
-
2021 (2) TMI 1231
Rejection of a portion of the claim as preferred by the Applicant - Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 r/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules of 2016 - HELD THAT:- IRP is to only merely collate the claim filed and not to dwell in to the transactions behind the Claim:-In relation to the submission of Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that the IRP is only required to collate the claim of the claimants based on the documents filed and nothing more, this Tribunal has its reservation in view of the recent developments which had taken place in law established by judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In Phoenix ARC Private Limited -vs- Spade Financial Services Ltd and Ors [2021 (2) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court had an occasion to consider claims arising out of collusive transactions as between the claimant and the corporate debtor and where the IRP had rejected the claim made by the financial creditor applying his mind.
It is clearly identifiable that in relation to IndusInd Bank facilities only the term loan amount had been reflected where as in relation to the Corporate Guarantee there had been no murmur on the part of the Applicant while the claim statement was filed initially on 04.05.2017. Thus, in the absence of any primary document/evidence being produced in relation to the Corporate Guarantee as given by the Corporate Debtor in relation to the loan availed by VDHPL, this Tribunal is constrained to uphold the decision of the IRP in rejecting the claim made in asum of ₹ 54.97,35,793/- by the Applicant.
The IRP is directed to admit the claim of ₹ 180,92,22,164/- pertaining to assignment agreement dated 29.03.2017 between the IndusInd Bank and the Applicant in the capacity as an Assignee having been ‘kept in abeyance’ vide his communication dated 06.02.2020, however the decision of the IRP in relation to Corporate Guarantee alleged to have been given by the Corporate Debtor in relation to the loan availed by Vasan Dental Hospital Private Limited and amounting to a sum of ₹ 54,97,35,793/- being the amount claimed stands rejected.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1230
Involuntary sale/assignment of the Corporate Debtor's residuary leasehold right to the applicant - transfer fee is payable or not - HELD THAT:- Since there is already an order dated 10/08/2020 passed by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling and the same has not been appealed against so far, payment of transfer fee and other applicable charges to WBIDC, shall have to be made. No exception to this or waiver can be granted by this Adjudicating Authority in respect of contractual obligations between WBIDC and the Corporate Debtor. That appropriately lies within realm of Civil Court. Therefore, the issue of waiver from transfer fee shall have to be raised by the applicant before the appropriate forum.
Having held that this Adjudicating Authority cannot grant waiver from payment of applicable transfer fees, etc. to WBIDC, the only thing left to be decided in the present IA is the question as to who will bear the cost thereof. Appropriately it should be borne by the applicant concerned since it is the claimant. The applicant is, therefore, hereby directed to pay the applicable fees to the WBIDC, and if so advised, it may choose to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in this regard.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1224
Application filed by IRP for withdrawal of CIRP - Filing of Form FA by IRP - Section 12A read with Regulation 30 A of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- It is admitted fact that the Operational Creditor had filed an application for initiation of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and on his application, the CIRP was initiated and subsequently, the CoC was constituted in which State Bank of India being the sole financial creditor is the sole member of the CoC and it is also admitted that the State Bank of India has approved the withdrawal by 100% voting.
Mere plain reading of Section 12A shows that the Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal application admitted under Section 7, 9 or 10 on an application made by the applicant with the approval of the 90% of the voting share of the CoC. Therefore, to file an application under Section 12A, the applicant is required to establish two elements i.e. first, the application must be filed by the applicant on whose prayer application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is admitted and secondly, it must be approved by 90% voting share of the CoC but herein the case in hand, it is admitted fact that the CoC which constitute the sole member of SBI by 100% voting approved the withdrawal. But so far the first element is concerned i.e. the application must be filed by the person on whose prayer application is admitted under Section 7, 9 or 10 is not established by the IRP/applicant of this present application and it is admitted fact that the present application has been filed by the IRP and not by the applicant.
In view of Section 12A the application must be filed by the applicant whose application is admitted u/s 7 or 9 or 10 IBC and nowhere either in the IBC or the in the Regulations, it is mentioned that any person other than applicant, whose application is admitted is empowered to file an application. Of course, under the Regulations it is mentioned that the application must be filed through the IRP or the RP the case may be but it never says that the application will be filed at the instance of the Corporate Debtor or the member of the CoC if it is not duly signed or filled by the applicant, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the IRP that in view of the directions given by the Hon'ble NCLAT, the IRP has filed the application.
The application is not filed by the applicant, on whose application CIRP is initiated therefore, the present application filed by the IRP even after the approval by the CoC by 100% voting, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed - Application dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1222
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Jurisdiction - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The date of default is 19.03.2018 that is the date of the last invoice issued which was unpaid, and the present application is filed on 20.05.2019. Hence the application is not time barred and filed within the period of limitation.
Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application.
Disputes existing prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice - HELD THAT:- The dispute must exist before the receipt of demand notice or invoice. Be that as it may, on appraisal of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels, it emerges that there were disputes existing prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice - A pre-existing dispute does not entitle the Operational Creditor to seek Insolvency Resolution of the Corporate Debtor. Whether the Operational Creditor is entitled to seek recovery of the amount of balance USD 2,28,079 out of the total USD 3,77,392.00 as set off by the Corporate Debtor through issuance of Debit Notes, is not for the consideration of this Bench. However, the Applicant has the option to file a Civil suit before the appropriate forum, for the recovery of the same.
This Bench is of the view that the prayer for initiating Corporate. Insolvency Resolution process against the Corporate Debtor is not sustainable - Application rejected.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1221
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - mutually acceptable settlement terms or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There is no legal impediment for the CoC to entertain the settlement terms if they are mutually acceptable to both the parties, i. e., the appellant and respondent No. 1. If the IRP is approached by the appellant and respondent No. 1 by filing the settlement terms in proper format, he will place the same before the CoC for consideration. This may be done within two weeks.
This appeal does not survive for further consideration - appeal is disposed with liberty to the appellant to come back if the settlement is not allowed by the committee of creditors.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1216
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - privity of contract or not - HELD THAT:- The unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 05.07.2019 is rejected. The Applicant has also filed Deed of Mortgage dated 20.10.2015 registered as document No. 3034/2015 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Srirangam executed between Mr. A. Francis in his individual capacity and the Applicant herein. In this registered Deed of Mortgage, the said Mr. A. Francis has mortgaged his individual property as a security to the loan availed by him from the applicant. It is clearly mentioned that Mr. A. Francis has obtained loan and towards that loan he has offered his property as mortgage to the applicant herein. There is no Privity of Contract between the applicant and the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant failed to satisfy this Adjudicating Authority regarding disbursement of loan into the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The loan alleged to have been availed by the Corporate Debtor is not reflected in the statement of accounts filed along with the application.
The entire transaction was on 20.10.2015. The argument of counsel for Applicant solely relies on the unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 05.07.2019 wherein he states that since the Corporate Debtor has executed the above MoU, the Corporate Debtor owes a total outstanding amount of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- to the Applicant and 4 other creditors. However, proof of payment/disbursement into the account of the Corporate Debtor has not been submitted by the applicant. Further, no interest has been serviced from the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. It is clear that the Applicant has failed to prove debt and default.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1206
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Debt or not - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It can be seen that right from the date of default on 13.11.2013 to filing the Petition on 22.11.2019, the petition is well within the period of limitation as prescribed u/s.19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
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 - it is found that the Petitioner has not received the outstanding Debt from the Respondent and that the formalities as prescribed under the Code have been completed by the Petitioner, this Petition deserves ‘Admission’.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1201
Preferential transactions or not - waterfall mechanism - sale by way of sale/transfer deed - Section 43 of IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- In order to ascertain the transaction as to whether it is falling under the provisions of Section 43 of IBC, 2016 as a preferential transaction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt in detail as to how the Resolution Professional is required to approach the transaction as preferential before filing an Application before this Tribunal impugning the said transactions as between the parties as a “Preferential Transaction” in the matter of ANUJ JAIN VERSUS AXIS BANK LTD. [2020 (2) TMI 1259 - SUPREME COURT] has held that The constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act, 2019 was also under challenge. The problem arose essentially with the decision of NCLAT holding that in a resolution plan, there could be no difference amongst the creditors in that, a financial creditor and operational creditor deserve equal treatment under a resolution plan.
In view of all the six steps as formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Anuj Jain case, in relation to consideration of the transaction as a preferential transaction have been satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the transaction indeed falls within the provisions of Section 43 of the IBC, 2016 and the transaction cannot be considered to be excepted from the ambit of transactions as provided under the said Section itself.
The 1st Respondent also not being the related party, it is also seen that the transaction under consideration in this Application has been carried as between the parties within one year period being the prescribed period for an unrelated party i.e., the 1st Respondent - application allowed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1199
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational creditors - pre-existing dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- As admitted by the Petitioner, as mentioned supra, the Corporate Debtor paid ₹ 6,60,000/- as an advance. And, as against two invoices dated 09.12.2016 for an aggregate amount of ₹ 37,86,750/-, the Respondent paid part-payment of ₹ 18,06,773/- and another part-payment of ₹ 5 Lakh in June 2017 with an assurance to clear the remaining balance amount shortly but failed to do so. Therefore, the Petitioner, after waiting for a long time, has issued demand Notice only on 13.11.2019, under provisions of Code, to the Respondent.
The instant Petition is admittedly filed with an intention to recover the alleged balance amount, which is against the object of Code, and the settled position of law on the issue. Since the Respondent has paid part-payments with an assurance to clear the balance in short time, the Petition can be disposed of by directing the Respondent to settle the claim within prescribed time.
The Respondent is directed to settle the claim of Petitioner as promised, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Petitioner is entitled to take appropriate legal course of action, in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1198
Validity and completeness of Information Memorandum circulated by the Respondent No. 2 - permission to petitioner to file a composite Resolution Plan - permission to Petitioner to file Resolution Plan as the first right after the outcome of the decision passed by the NCLAT - HELD THAT:- The claim has been filed by the FC for ₹ 133,54,94,330.00 against the Corporate Debtor for the loan disbursed amount of ₹ 3,07,71,127.00 by the IDBI to the Principal Borrower M/s. NBL - It is not clear how the FC has claimed 43 times of the amount of loan disbursed 21 years back when the FC is under RBI Regulations and capping of interest rate, implementation of Base Rate (2010)/MCLR is in operation for last several years in the Country especially for MSME Unit.
Covid Pandemic started from 24.03.2020 and shutdown/lockdown were in full swing from 25.03.2020 with several Covid protocol guidelines issued by the Govt. of India, State Govt. District Magistrates etc. for adhering into day to day life/functioning of Industries Office - COC has approved a Resolution Plan on 10.11.2020 and the said plan is placed now before this Adjudicating Authority by the RP for consideration.
Thus, the Suspended Management of the CD be given a chance to submit Resolution Plan as prayed for - application disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1196
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Corporate Guarantor - Principal Borrower is not a Corporate Debtor or Corporate Person - initiation of CIRP against two ‘Corporate Guarantors’ simultaneously for the same set of debt and default - Pledge is a Bailment of goods for security for payment or performance of a promise - HELD THAT:- Once the CIRP against the Premier Limited is initiated, CIRP against this Corporate Debtor in the capacity of Borrower/Pledgor who defaulted in repayment of debt due to the Petitioner. Infact, it can be said that the Corporate Debtor has accepted the additional liability of being a Borrower and a Pledgor.
The tenure of Loan cum Pledge Agreement dated 04.05.2016 was extended by a period of 18 months up to 04.05.2018 through an addendum dated 06.10.2016. Under the Loan Agreement, the Corporate Debtor being the Co-borrower had pledged 53,01,000 shares of Corporate Debtor in favour of the Petitioner. In view of default of not servicing the loan/pledge Agreement by Premier Ltd. who is already under CIRP vide admission order dated 29.01.2021 and no recoveries were possible under the said pledge document, the debt and default are established and the ingredients of Section 7 of the Code are thus fulfilled.
The definition of Pledge under Section 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that Pledge is a Bailment of goods for security for payment or performance of a promise. The principles of promise of payment are akin to the principles of contract of Surety under Section 126 of the Contract Act, 1872. The facts of the present case, the Corporate Debtor as borrower No.1 and Pledgor. The entire Loan cum Pledge Agreement executed in favor of the Petitioner confirms the liability of borrower(s) is co-extensive/ joint and several as entailed in the terms & conditions of payment/repayment, and even where the events of default is triggered under the contract - It is an undisputed fact that the default is proved and liability is established and that an order of admission is passed against the Borrower (Premier Limited) for the same set of loan.
This Bench, on perusal of the documents filed by the Financial Creditor, is of the view that the Premier Limited and the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repaying the loan availed. In the light of facts and circumstances, the existence of debt and default is reasonably established by the Petitioner as a major constituent for admission of a Petition under Section 7 of the Code. Therefore, the Petition under sub-section (2) of Section 7 is taken as complete, accordingly this Bench hereby admits this Petition.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1195
Amendment in cause title - power of Tribunal to review its own order - HELD THAT:- Failure of non-compliance on the part of the Petitioner disentitles it to continue with this Petition. It is also projected by the Ld. Advocate for the Corporate Debtor that this Tribunal does not have the power to review of its own order.
In so far as this Petition is concerned, the Petitioner as reflected in the cause title contains both the name of the Sole Proprietor as well as the name of the Sole Proprietary concern and hence the Petition can be taken on record.
The Corporate Debtor is directed to file its reply to this Petition within a period of three (3) weeks from today - Post this matter on 08.03.2021 for completion of the pleadings and enquiry.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1192
Seeking extension of time period of 322 days between the date of order of admission dated 30.01.2020 till the actual date (i.e. 16.12.2020) on which the present IRP came to know about the appointment and to declare 16.12.2020 as the date of commencement of CIRP - HELD THAT:- As evident from the various reports, since the order dated 30.01.2020 was uploaded on the website of this Tribunal on the very next day of the pronouncement i.e., on 31.01.2020, it is deemed to have been communicated to all the parties. Therefore, the plea that the parties had no knowledge about the order dated 30.01.2020 does not merit any consideration. Further, the IP, who admittedly pursuant to the Rule 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, had given his consent dated 17.12.2020 in the Form-2 to act as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the present matter was obligated to keep a track of the status of the case, for which he had given the express consent.
In view of the amendment by Section 12 of IBC 2016, by which the CIRP shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days including any extension of the period of CIRP granted and the time taken in legal proceedings, there are no merit in the prayers for exclusion of the period of 322 days from CIRP and declaration of 16.12.2020 as the date of commencement of CIRP.
In the interest of taking the CIR process forward, what could utmost be done in terms of the Regulation 40C of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2020 is to exclude the period of Lockdown imposed by Central Government in the wake of Covid-19 and accordingly, the exclusion of the period from 25.03.2020 to 30.06.2020 i.e., a total period of 97 days from the period of CIRP is ordered with a direction to the IRP to expedite the CIR process.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1189
Vacation of earlier status quo order - HELD THAT:- Earlier status quo order dated 26.12.2019 stands vacated and liquidator is permitted to proceed with the e-auction.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1188
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:- Admittedly, there is an outstanding debt which is more than ₹ 1 lakh being the minimum at the relevant time for filing of an application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016. The debt is due and payable to the Financial Creditor by the Corporate Debtor has committed default in repayment. The first acknowledgement of debt is well within the original period of limitation from the date of default. Second confirmation/acknowledgement also extends the limitation for filing this application. Thus, the debt is not barred by limitation.
The application is otherwise complete and compliances with the requirements of IBC, 2016 r.w. IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1187
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:- The petition made by the Financial Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of the minimum amount of one lakh rupees as stipulated under section 4(1) of the Code at the relevant time. But on perusal of the master data of the Corporate Debtor it is seen that the Corporate Debtor has given a Corporate Guarantee of ₹ 4,82,42,00,000/-.
On further enquiry and on perusal of the financial statements for the financial year 2018-19 of the Corporate Debtor, it has come to light that the net worth of the Corporate Debtor is ₹ 15,36,39,015/-. It is hard to convince oneself that a Company having a networth of ₹ 15,36,39,015/- is not able to make a payment of ₹ 3,00,000/-. It appears that the petition at hand has been filed in collusion with the Corporate Debtor.
Petition cannot be admitted and is dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1184
Validity of approved Resolution Plan - Priority of rights created by transfer - treatment of all Secured Financial Creditors equally though all Financial Creditors did not hold first charge on the properties of Respondent No.4 - contravention of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Appellant was part of COC and the COC had in 9th Meeting deliberated and unanimously agreed that distribution of the proceeds under the Resolution Plan to the Financial Creditors shall be in proportion to the share of the voting rights of the relevant Financial Creditors in the COC. In the e-voting which came to be held, the Appellant had consented to the Resolution Plan which even specifically stated the specific amounts which will be given in the distribution. Having agreed to such Resolution Plan, the Appellant needs to be estopped from questioning the same. The Appellant in the Appeal has claimed that the Appellant had sent e-mail to the Resolution Professional on 05.03.2020 asking why other lenders had been treated equally with the Appellant - The Appellant could see the options open to it and chose one. The Appellant took informed decision to vote in favour. Having done so, the Appellant needs to be estopped from questioning the Resolution Plan with regard to the manner of distribution.
Apart from this, considering decision of the COC that the distribution would be in proportion to the share of voting rights, being commercial decision of the COC to see through the CIRP proceedings so as to reach a resolution, we would not like to interfere - IBC is subsequent law, with Section 238 giving overriding effect. When COC has the discretion as mentioned, Resolution Professional could not have relied on Section 48 of Transfer of Property Act, which is in context of contractual rights, to hold back the Resolution Plan from COC.
There are no substance in the Appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1179
Seeking directions pertaining to auction sale of assets for waiver of interest demanded on balance sale consideration - seeking direction to the Respondent not to treat non-payment of interest on the balance sale consideration by the Applicant as a default - seeking to refrain from disqualifying the Applicant as successful bidder - seeking to forfeit the earnest money deposit - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that there was a delay on the part of the Applicant to pay balance sale consideration but the issue to be decide in this case is whether the delay was solely on account of the Applicant and if yes, the Applicant has to pay interest for the delayed period @12 % P.A. as per regulation, auction notice.
In the instant case the Applicant had sought a specific clarification from the Liquidator who has clarified as discussed in pre-para GIDC also taken time to arrive at the amount payable as sub division charges, surveys conducted on various occasions, issued provisional order to pay “concession charges” along with other conditions to be fulfilled etc. From the submissions it is noted that the Applicant never denied payment of balance sale consideration neither on account of incapable, financial difficulty, nor willful nonpayment but on the other hand because of the specific clarification issued by the Respondent, time taken by GIDC as discussed above and finally on account of COVID 19 situation and Regulation 47 A of IBBI Regulation etc. It is also noted that the Applicant had made payment of ₹ 1,57,46,696/- on 25.06.20202 towards interest under protest. The submissions of the Applicant is acceptable.
The delay in payment of balance sale consideration cannot be attributed to the Applicant, successful bidder. The interest burden thus cannot be fastened on him. The Applicant is not liable to pay interest as claimed by the Respondent. Therefore, an amount of ₹ 1,57,46,696/- paid towards interest by the Applicant under protest is to be refunded/adjusted by the Liquidator within 30 days from the date of this order - Application allowed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1178
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues or not - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of notice - notice was not replied - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Since initiation of insolvency proceedings involves various proceedings contemplated under the supervision of IRP/RP, where IRP/RP is to be assisted by the Management/ staff of the Corporate Debtor, it is necessary that Corporate Debtor should be aware Of CIRP proceedings. And principles of natural justice also mandates that concerned party should be given proper notice of proceedings. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority ordered notice to the Respondent on 03.03.2020, and case stands posted on various dates viz., 05.01.2021, 06.01.2021 and 22.01.2021. However, none appears for the Respondent and no reply is filed.
It is also relevant to point out here that consideration of mere debt and default in question, without knowing/ serving notice on the Corporate Debtor, would be futile exercise. Even the information furnished on behalf of the Petitioner, as stated supra, would be of no use. The Adjudicating Authority cannot come to conclusion basing on one side version of the Petitioner. And the Corporate Debtor is stated to have cleared all the invoices of the Operational Creditor till the month of February, 2017 - Though invoices in question contemplate within 10 days, failing which it carries interest @ 24% Demand filed the payment p.a, the Petitioner has not initiated any legal proceedings prior to the instant Proceedings and the Petitioner has not explained the reasons for not initiating proceedings earlier.
As per the MCA website, the Corporate Debtor Active compliance was Active Non-Compliance. Since the year of 2016, the Corporate Debtor has failed to file its statutory returns. However, it is not known whether the Company is on active rolls of the ROC or not. If the Company failed to comply with statutory compliances, the ROC can take appropriate action to strike off it. And while striking off the Company, ROC can take into consideration of interest of Petitioner herein, in terms of extant provisions of Companies Act, 2013, and the Rules made thereunder - the Company petition is barred by laches and limitation, and it is filed with an intention to recover alleged debts, which is against the object of Code.
Petition is hereby disposed of by directing the ROC, Bengaluru to examine whether the Corporate Debtor has complied with the statutory requirement(s) and to take appropriate action, and while taking action.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1175
Maintainability of application - It is submitted that two OTS proposals were given to the Financial Creditor which has been rejected - HELD THAT:- There is no chance for settlement. The application has become infructuous. The same stands dismissed.
........
|
