TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying to drag out this matter on one or the other pretext. There is a liability is subsisting against the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has already defaulted in repaying the liability, therefore, and thus it is a fit case for admission - application admitted - moratorium also declared. - CP/1307/IB/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2019 - MR B. S. V. PRAKASH KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For The Financial Creditor : Mr S. Sathiyanarayanan, Adv. For The Corporate Debtor : Mr Ashwin Shanbhey, Adv. ORDER MR B. S. V. PRAKASH KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) It is a Company Petition filed u/s. 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code ( the Code ) by IDBI Bank ( the Creditor Bank ) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor on the ground that it has defaulted repaying an amount of ₹ 183,75,51,582 as on 01.10.2018 as against the loans availed by the Corporate Debtor. 2. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Corporate Debtor availed credit facilities for an amount of ₹ 31 Crores under the head of Working Capital Loan , ₹ 50 Crores under the head of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on its own showing has revealed that the date of occurrence of default as 30.06.2015, but whereas this petition being filed on 24.10.2018, it is self-evident that this petition has been filed after completion of three years from the date of occurrence of default, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the debt claim is barred by limitation. 6. To give justification to this argument, the Corporate Debtor counsel has drawn the attention of this Bench to sub-section 12 of Section 3 and Section 7 of the Code for saying that limitation against the claim will start running from the date of occurrence of default. 7. On this premise, the Corporate Debtor having filed counter affidavit, the Creditor Bank counsel has also filed rejoinder rejecting the contention of the Corporate Debtor counsel by saying, as to the Working Capital Loan and Rupee Term Loans being payable on demand, since the Creditor Bank gave Recall Notice on 13.11.2015, the Claim Petition being filed on 24.10.2018, it is evident that the Creditor Bank has made claim within the period of three years from the date of issual of Recall Notice dated 13.11.2015. Secondly, the Creditor Bank coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the debt after occurrence of default, in any event, this debt liability having remained showing in the books of the Company as on 24.08.2017, we have not found any merit in the argument of the Corporate Debtor counsel saying that three years period of limitation is over from the date of occurrence. 12. While this Bench dictating this order, this Corporate Debtor counsel has interjected the dictation by showing up a letter written by the Debtor proposing OTS proposal dated 19.06.2017 to say that the Creditor bank has not taken into consideration of the bonafides of the Corporate Debtor. 13. Against this argument, the Creditor bank counsel has rebutted saying that the Creditor bank has written back to the Corporate Debtor through a letter 20.06.2017 saying that the creditor bank would like to inform that the bank was unable to call for JLM to discuss the proposal in the absence of the details of the investor identified by the Corporate Debtor, the proposed plan of action of the investor for the revival of the Corporate Debtor, contours of the settlement proposal, therefore the bank made a request to furnish a fully tied up proposal to take up the same to the JIM, to which, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adings, the only thing that is required to be complied is providing an opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to defend the case. That has been provided. 18. On perusal of the process file, we have come to know that this case was filed 30.10.2018, now already three months are over, for this, we regret to say that this is a belated adjudication on a case filed by the Bank. 19. Therefore, we are of the view that the submissions made by the Corporate Debtor are misconceived and for trying to drag out this matter on one or the other pretext. 20. In view of the reasons aforementioned and the material furnished by the Financial Creditor, we are of the view that liability is subsisting against the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has already defaulted in repaying the liability, therefore, we hereby hold that it is a fit case for admission. The Financial Creditor has also filed consent letter given by the Insolvency Resolution Professional, henceforth, we hereby declare moratorium with the following directions: I. That Moratorium is hereby declared prohibiting all of the following actions, namely, (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
