TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1799/NCLT/MB/MAH/2018 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2019 - Shri V.P. Singh, Member (Judicial) And Shri Ravikumar Duraisamy, Member (Technical) For The Petitioner : Ms. Suchitra Valjee, Advocate , Prerana Wagh, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Akshay Puranik, Advocate ,Ms.Henna Daulat and Ms Anaisha Zachariah, Advocate ORDER Per V.P. Singh, Member (Judicial) 1. It is a Petition filed u/s 7 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( I B Code ) by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Limited, Financial Creditor or Petitioner against Sejal Glass Ltd. (earlier known as Sezal Glass Limited), Corporate Debtor to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP ) against the Corporate Debtor on the ground that as on10.05.2018, the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in repaying the debt amount i.e. ₹40, 49, 72, 485/-. The date of default in repayment of the debt by the Corporate Debtor as stated by the petitioner is 13.10.2016. 2. The Petitioner, as Trustee of the Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Trust SC-42, entered into an assignment agreement with State Bank of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the Petitioner agrees to restructure the Existing Liability as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The said restructuring along with all terms and conditions was accepted by the Corporate Debtor and the Letter dated 08.01.2016 was signed by Mr Amrut S. Gada, Chairman Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor. The terms of the Restructuring provided, among other things, that the crystalised amount is of ₹26, 00, 00, 000/- and on revocation of restructuring, the entire amount of existing liability shall become due and payable to the Petitioner. 7. The said restructuring was revoked by the Petitioner vide its letter dated 13.10.2016 due to default by the Corporate Debtor in repayment as per the terms of restructuring. The Petitioner has annexed with the petition the restructuring Letter dated 08.01.2016 and the Letter of Revocation of Restructuring dated 13.10.2016. 8. The Petitioner has annexed a letter of the Corporate Debtor, dated 14.05.2016, stating that the account of the Petitioner in the Books maintained by the Corporate Debtor has a credit balance of ₹26, 81, 14, 141/- as on 31.03.2016 and the same is acknowled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at since the filing of Certificate of Charge is a mandatory requirement under Form-I of I B Rules, the application, as filed by the Petitioner, under section 7 of I B Code is incomplete. 17. With respect to the second defence, the Corporate Debtor has argued that the Agreement for Grant of Credit Facility dated 04.08.2011; Agreement for Grant of Credit Facility dated 14.12.2011 and the assignment agreement dated 13.09.2014 are insufficiently stamped and hence are not admissible in evidence and are liable to be impounded under the provisions of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The Corporate Debtor has relied upon section 19, 33, 34 and 37 of the Stamp Act and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Chandmari Tea Company Pvt ., (2011) 14 SCC 66 and the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs Alpha and Omega Diagnostics (India) Ltd. and Ors . 18. The Corporate Debtor has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs ICICI Bank , (2018) 1 SCC 407 to state that the Petitioner cannot proceed to recover the debt from the Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25. As to the objections raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding the Certificate of registration of Charge, the Petitioner has submitted with its written submissions Form CHG-1 along with Certificate of Registration for Modification of Charge dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, the said objection is not sustainable. 26. With regard to the other objection on the agreements being not duly stamped, it is noted that the Corporate Debtor itself has repeatedly relied and acted upon the said agreements viz. in its Affidavit in Reply dated 06.02.2018 filed on behalf of the Sejal Glass Limited, in Company Petition No. 943 of 2014 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and again in its Standalone Financial Statements for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 27. Therefore, even if the agreements, as alleged, are not admissible as an evidence of debt and default, there are several other documents that show the admission by the Corporate Debtor of the debt that it owes to the Petitioner viz . its letter dated 14.05.2016 and its Affidavit in reply dated 06.02.2018 filed in the Hon ble Bombay High Court. 28. By the above discussion, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period. III. That the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of IBC shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. IV. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from 13.02.2019 till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of IBC or passes an order for the liquidation of the corporate debtor under section 33 of IBC, as the case may be. V. That the public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of IBC. VI. That this Bench at this moment appoints Shri Rajendra Kumar Girdhar, Registration Number [IBBI/IPA-003/IP-N00048/2017-18/10396]as Interim Resolution Professional to carry out the functions as mentioned under IBC. Fee payable to IRP/RP shall comply with the IBBI Regulations/Circulars/Directions issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
