TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en repealed by way of a notification dated 25.11.2016 published by the Government of India with effect from 01.12.2016 and thus the BIFR established under the provisions of the SICA was also abolished. As per section 22(5) of SICA (since repealed), period from 15.01.2007 to 30.11.2016 is to be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Between 2004 to 2007 it is also seen that dispute settlement was arrived, however the same stood withdrawn subsequently. Thus Right to Sue Survives and the present petition being filed in December 2018 is within limitation, being within three years from the date, the cause of action for recovery proceedings arose. This Tribunal is inclined to admit this petition and initiate CIRP of the Respondent - applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al restructuring of RTL of ₹ 2951 lakh along with overdue interest, further interest and liquidated images and to subscribe to the proposed issue of Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) aggregating to ₹ 4295 Lakhs on terms and conditions enumerated. Further the foreign currency loan US$ 2.453 million equivalent to ₹ 1043 lakh was proposed to be converted under single pool currency. e. On 30.3.1999 loan cum security document were executed. f. On 17.12.1999 mortgage was created by corporate debtor by way of deposit of title deed. g. On 29.09.2004 by virtue of transfer deed dated September 30,2004 to Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), IDBI unconditionally and irrevocably sold, assigned, transferred and released t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of the petitioner in the said O.A. No. 975 of 2018 is different from the claim alleged in the above titled petition. In the proceedings before the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, the petitioner is claiming a sum of ₹ 1177,61,11,170/- whereas a bare perusal of the alleged loan recall letter dated 09.04.2018 demonstrates that it inter alia claims that the principal outstanding of ₹ 53,55,36,002/- and further claims towards interest a sum of ₹ 10,43,78,110/-. b. It is submitted that the above titled petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking recovery of alleged dues against the Corporate Debtor pursuant that the petitioner is not a party in either the loan agreement dated 13.07.1995 or any of the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e corporate debtor and IDBI Bank. Yet for reasons best known to the petitioner, deliberately failed to make IDBI Bank as party in the present proceedings. e. It is submitted that the petitioner in the above titled petition demonstrates that the petitioner is claiming a sum of ₹ 1247,30,97,149/- as against the claim of ₹ 1177,61,11,170/- in the proceedings before the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi. Whereas, a bare perusal of the alleged debt loan recall letter dated 09.04.2018 states that the principal outstanding of ₹ 53,55,36,002/- and further claims towards interest in a sum of ₹ 1043,78,11,070/-. Consequently, by way of the present petition the petitioner is attempting to legitimize its aforesaid demands tog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted a settlement proposal which was accepted by applicant on 23.04.2005. However, the applicant vide its letter dated August 17, 2006 withdrew/revoked the same as the Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement. d. It is submitted that the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 has been repealed by way of a notification dated 25.11.2016 published by the Government of India with effect from 01.12.2016. That the loan of Corporate Debtor was recalled on 09.04.2018 and O.A. was filed in DRT-II, Delhi for recovery against the Corporate Debtor. 4. Oral arguments were also heard and order was reserved on 23.07.2019. As directed vide order dated 23.07.2019 the petitioner have also filled written submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther even though a feeble attempt was made on the part of the Corporate debtor to project certain inconsistencies in relation to claim amounts, however it is seen that the amount in default in excess of ₹ 1,00,000/- being the minimum threshold limit fixed under IBC,2016. Considering the circumstances this Tribunal is inclined to admit this petition and initiate CIRP of the Respondent: 1. A moratorium in terms of section 14 of the Code is imposed forthwith in following terms: (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Respondent including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
