TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner before May 25, 2018 and details thereof. It is admitted that there is no entry debiting the interest in the account of the respondent being maintained by the petitioner before entry dated May 20, 2017 to the tune of ₹ 2,07,82,027. The loan is said to have disbursed in the year 2013 and it is admitted that there is no entry of debiting the interest in any of the financial years except when the dispute between the parties arose. The petition is rejected in limine with cost of ₹ 2,00,000 with a direction to deposit the amount of costs in the Prime Minister Relief Fund within a period of one month of receipt of certified copy of the order. - C. P. (IB) No. 332 /Chd/Pb/ 2018 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2018 - R. P. NAGRATH Judicial Member and PRADEEP R. SETHI Technical Member Rakesh Bhatia , for the petitioner. JUDGMENT The petitioner claiming itself to be financial creditor has filed this petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short to be referred hereinafter as the Code ) for initiating insolvency resolution process against the respondent-corporate debtor. The petition h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agistrate despite issuance of summoning orders and were declared proclaimed offenders. 5. It is stated that the petitioner also filed a petition for winding up of the company in the hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana bearing C. P. No. 122 of 2015 under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 in support of part of the amount of ₹ 90,00,000 under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The matter was pending for adjudication before the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. 6. Thereafter, the meetings were held between the parties and with great efforts, the matter was settled and the respondent-corporate debtor had to forego a part of the interest for arriving at settlement. The parties reached a settlement for an amount of ₹ 6,00,00,000 (rupees six crores) inclusive of interest on principal unpaid amount of ₹ 4.40 crores. Earlier the settlement was oral then reduced in the form of writing on May 20, 2017 whereby the respondent-corporate debtor agreed to pay the amount of ₹ 6,00,00,000 inclusive of the interest. The post-dated cheques have been issued for payment of the amount settled and thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) money borrowed against the payment of interest ; . . . 12. The contention of the petitioner counsel is to cover the case of the petitioner in sub-clause (a) of section 5(8) of the Code. So the basic requirement is whether the money was borrowed against consideration for time value of money and according to the petitioner the money was given on payment of the interest. Is there any remote evidence to support this contention ? We are quite aware of the legal proposition that at the preliminary stage whatever are the allegations made in the petition should be accepted without any scope of defence that may be raised by the respondent. 13. When the matter was listed on October 24, 2018 the petitioner was directed to file a detailed affidavit replying to the queries as under : (i) The date(s) of filing the criminal complaint(s) under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent-corporate debtor for dishonour of the cheque(s) ; (ii) Whether the accused in the criminal complaint(s) put in appearance before the Magistrate in response to the summons ; (iii) Whether the complaint(s) is/are still pending or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner vehemently contended that the cause of action has now arisen afresh on the basis of a new agreement reached between the parties which is at annexure A1(a) dated June 15, 2018. Under this agreement it is stated that the respondent had borrowed a sum of ₹ 4.40 crores from the petitioner and he issued post-dated cheques. It was disclosed that criminal complaints against the corporate debtor and its directors under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were filed. Thereafter, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent will pay ₹ 4.40 crores as principal amount and ₹ 1.60 crores as its interest for which the earlier agreement dated May 20, 2017 was executed. The respondent-corporate debtor is said to have defaulted in making payments and some of the cheques were dishonoured and the total amount now out- standing was stated to be ₹ 4.50 crores. The respondent-corporate debtor issued more cheques for meeting the outstanding liability with an undertaking and assurance that all the cheques would be honoured. The petitioner was also at liberty to enforce the agreement by way of initiating the legal proceedings against the respondent-corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
