Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 927 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor - completion of application - Held that:- A defective application can be corrected by removing the defect. Similarly, if an application is incomplete, it can be completed, but if any misleading statement is made in an application no time can be granted to recall the misleading statement and such application is fit to be rejected. In the present case, it is not the case of the Appellants that there is a mismatch between the amount shown in the notice under Rule 4(3) and the amount of default shown by the 'Financial Creditor' in its original application under Section 7. On the other hand, the 'Corporate Debtor' has explained that the amount of interest as was calculated upto 31 t March, 2012, if further calculated for the period from 1St April, 2012 to 14th May, 2017, then the total debt comes to ₹ 1,09,32,72,312.86p. The default amount as on 31st March, 2012 remains constant. Thus we find that neither any misleading statement was made by the 'Financial Creditor' nor any misleading statement of default was made. The case of the Respondent-'Financial Creditor', being different from the case of 'ICICI Bank Limited' (the 'Financial Creditor' of M/s. Starlog Enterprises Limited), the plea taken by the Appellants cannot be accepted. Another ground taken by the Appellants is that the person, who filed the application under Section 7 was not authorised by the Board of Directors of the Bank of India ('Financial Creditor'). The Respondent has brought to our notice that the person who has filed the petition under Section 7, is an officer of Bank of India (Financial Creditor) and was authorised by the Board of Directors to do so. Therefore, the impugned judgement cannot be interfered with on such ground. In view of the discussions as made above and in absence of merit, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
|