TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efaulted in making the payment. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that Order has been passed without affording an opportunity for filing Reply, in violation of the principle of natural justice is without any basis. It is the admitted position that for the same Financial Debt the earlier Company Petition No.1788 of 2018 was filed against the Corporate Debtor, which was not opposed and the Corporate Debtor offered One Time Settlement. Based on that offer the Adjudicating Authority permitted the withdrawal of the earlier Petition by its Order dated 25th September 2018 - It is also apparent that the Corporate Debtor in compliance of OTS issued post-dated cheques which were returned, dishonoured and Petitioner was constrained to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llavi Pratap, Advocates for Intervenors. Mr Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate JUDGMENT [ Per ; V. P. Singh, Member (T) ] This Appeal emanates from the Order of admission Dt. 20th August 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Company Petition (I.B.) No. 27 of 2019, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short I B Code ) against Housing Development Infrastructure Limited ( HDIL ). The Parties are represented by their original status in the Company Petition for the sake of convenience. 2. These brief facts of the case are as follows: The Respondent No.1 Bank of India filed an Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of demand on 08th July 2015 on behalf of Debentures Holders including the Petitioner/Respondent for an amount of ₹ 616,91,40,462.26. But the Corporate Debtor has failed to pay in terms of the demand. Therefore, on 06th December 2016, the IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited took possession of the mortgaged properties. 5. The Petitioner filed a Company Petition No.1788 of 2018 under Section 7 of the Code for Initiation of CIRP. During the pendency of the Petition, the Corporate Debtor proposed to settle the matter by submitting OTS dated 31st August 2018. Resultantly, the Petition was withdrawn. After that, the Corporate Debtor again committed default in making payment as per terms of OTS. The Corporate Debtor issued, post-dated ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to file Reply. It is further contended that the Adjudicating Authority has not given any finding of debt and default, and the Order has been passed even though the application was not complete. 10. It is important to the point that prior to this Company Petition No.27 of 2019, another Company Petition No.1788 of 2018 was filed by the respondent (Financial Creditor) against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Code, wherein the Corporate Debtor after putting appearance did not oppose the Company Petition, but offered a One Time Settlement (OTS), which was approved by the Respondent Bank. After that, the Company Petition No.1788 of 2018 was permitted to be withdrawn vide Order dated 25th Septembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the settlement. Appellant has also annexed a copy of Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 08th April 2019 which is at page no. 347 of the paper book. It appears that on 08th April 2019 the Adjudicating Authority granted further time upto 30th April 2019 for making payment of Rupees Forty-Seven Crores in compliance with OTS. It is also on record that on 04th April 2019 both sides were represented before the Adjudicating Authority. Still, despite the failure of the Corporate Debtor in honouring the undertaking given to the Court, further three weeks was given for making payment in pursuance of the settlement. Appellant has also annexed a copy of a letter dated 26th July 2019 issued by the Corporate Debtor for granting further time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not opposed and the Corporate Debtor offered One Time Settlement. Based on that offer the Adjudicating Authority permitted the withdrawal of the earlier Petition by its Order dated 25th September 2018. 15. It is also apparent that the Corporate Debtor in compliance of OTS issued post-dated cheques which were returned, dishonoured and Petitioner was constrained to file fresh proceeding under Section 7 of the Code, which was numbered as 27 of 2019. In the second Petition again, the Adjudicating Authority provided several opportunities to the Corporate Debtor considering the scope of the settlement. However, after the failure of any hope of settlement, the Order of admission was passed against the corporate debtor. 16. It is pertinen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
