TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed within 3 years as provided under article 137 of the Limitation Act - Admittedly the respondent had committed default in payment of the debt. In view of the orders of the DRT-I, Hyderabad the debt became due and payable subsequent to August 17, 2018. Therefore, the defence contention that the debt was time barred cannot be accepted. The issue is answered in the negative. Existence of default or not - HELD THAT:- In an application under section 7 of the Code the reason for the inability of the respondent in paying off the debt is not required to be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority. What is required to be seen is the default - In this case the default has been satisfactorily proved. Thus the petition needs to be admitted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay 31, 2001. The respondent defaulted in paying back the loans. The IDBI declared the entire account as non-performing asset (NPA) on September 30, 2002. The IDBI by a registered transfer deed dated September 30, 2004 transferred the loans and underlined security interest to the present petitioner. IDBI meanwhile filed an original application, namely, O. A. No. 193 of 2004 on July 27, 2004 seeking recovery of debt before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (DRT-I), Hyderabad. Later, the petitioner was substituted upon transfer of the debt to it. The respondent had been acknowledging the debt due to the IDBI and the present petitioner vide its annual report for the year 2011-12 and the default committed in repayment of the debt for 12 years. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation in view of section 238A of the Code. Therefore, the debt claimed by the petitioner would not be classified as due and payable. In this connection reference is made to Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee v. Lanco Kondapally Power Ltd. (citation not given). The petition therefore deserves to be rejected. The petition was transferred to this Tribunal, after its establishment. 4. Basing on the rival pleadings and the fact that the debt is admitted the following issue arises for consideration. (i) Whether the petition is barred by limitation ? Issue No. (i) : 5. The following facts are not in dispute. The respondent had availed credit facilities amounting to ₹ 43,32,00,000 (rupees forty three crores thirty two l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anced to the respondent were secured by mortgages. The IDBI, predecessor of the petitioner moved the Debt Recovery TribunalI, Hyderabad on July 27, 2004 within 3 years or 12 years, as the case may be from September 30, 2002. There is no quarrel that the account of the respondent had been declared non-performing asset. The application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad was within time. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad by order dated August 17, 2018 allowed the application and ordered recovery of the debt with interest, pendente lite and future, at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. 7. In view of the order of the DRT-I the debt became due and payable with effect from August 17, 2018. The present petition was filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12(1) of the Code. (ii) Shri Niranjan Miriyala, chartered accountant (Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00642/2017-2018/11094, having office at First Floor, H. No. 7-1-28/1/A/21, Shyamkaran Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 016 ; e-mail ID : caniranjan@yahoo.com) is appointed as the interim resolution professional (IRP). (iii) He is directed to take charge of the respondent/corporate debtor's management forthwith and take necessary steps in furtherance of the CIRP in terms of sections 13(2), 15, 17, 18 and 20 of the IBC and Rules made thereunder. (iv) Moratorium under section 14 of the IBC in respect of the respondent is hereby declared. (v) The directors, promoters or any other person associated with the management of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
