TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the Corporate Debtor M/S. 0m Shiv Hydro Power Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for initiation Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on the ground that Corporate Debtor defaulted on 20.12.2015 in making the payment of loan dues, which works out to ₹ 7,00,72,742/- as on 31.12.2017, under Section 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. The Petitioner vide sanction letter dated 9.3.2015 converted the existing CC Hypo limit of 500 lakhs to Working Capital Demand loan with the reduction of ₹ 50,00,000/- to ₹ 495,00,000/- which is repayable after six months within a period of 30 months at the rate of ₹ 19.43 lakhs as equated monthly instalments with the rider that the interest is to be serviced every month including the moratorium period of six months. The Petitioner enclosed the following documents in support of the loan : (a) Agreement dated 31.3.2015 for working capital demand loan for ₹ 4.95 crores. (b) Hypothecation Agreement dated 31.3.2015. (c) Deed of Mortgage dated 31.3.2015. (d) Certificate of Registration of for modification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed various proceedings with the sole object of browbeating the Corporate Debtor and forcing them to pay unrealistic amount. It is a fact that the Petitioner has issued SARFAESI notice to the Corporate Debtor and the same has been disclosed in the Petition. Further, the Petitioner has also disclosed that an Original Application under Section 19 Of the Recovery of Debts (due to Bank and Financial Institutions) Act, 1993 is pending. Hence, this Bench feels that there is sufficient disclosure Of other proceedings pending before other Forums and hence, the question Of non-disclosure by the Petitioner does not arise at all. (d) Non-joinder of necessary parties: The Corporate Debtor contends that the property mortgaged for the loan belongs to some third party and not to the Corporate and non-joinder of the such third parties is fatal to the Petition. However, in view of the fact that this is a Petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor it is not necessary to implead third parties who have given their property as security for the loan. Hence, this claim of the Corporate Debtor also fails. (e) No service of notice under I B Code 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Anr.- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 81 of 2017 , wherein it was held that pendency of SARFAESI proceedings or the DRT proceedings or DRAT proceedings, or suit proceedings cannot be a ground to reject the Insolvency and Bankruptcy petition. Further, it was held that I B Code shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force including DRT Act, 1993; SARFAESI Act, 2002; money suit etc. (h) Delay in disbursement of loan and consequential loss: Admittedly, the loan was taken in the year 2013 and subsequently renewed in the year 2015 and after default when CIRP is initiated, the Corporate Debtor cannot take a stand that there was a delay in disposal of loan and there was a consequential loss of 5 crores and hence this petition has to be dismissed. It is not known why the Corporate Debtor has waited for 5 years instead of initiating appropriate proceedings against the Petitioner before the appropriate forum. This contention is only an afterthought by the Corporate Debtor to stall the CIRP and hence it does not merit any consideration. (i) Authority of Mrs. Prachi Gode to file this Petition: The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anks. This Bench looks into the petition and analyses whether the debt is there and default has occurred based on various documents provided by the Petitioner and the CIBIL Report is one of the documents which comes to the aid of this Bench but that is not the only document relied upon by this Bench to come to a conclusion whether the ingredients of Section 7 are satisfied. Hence, apprehension of the Corporate Debtor about the veracity Of the CIBIL Report does not merit any consideration for deciding this petition. 5. This Adjudicating Authority, on perusal of the documents filed by the Creditor, is of the view that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repaying the loan availed and also placed the name Of the Insolvency Resolution Professional to act as Interim Resolution Professional and there being no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, therefore the Application under sub-section (2) of section 7 is taken as complete, accordingly this Bench hereby admits this Petition prohibiting all of the following of item-I, namely: I (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
