9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BC') before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench), Ahmedabad in C.P.(I.B.) No. 349/7/NCLT/AHM/2018. The Application was filed claiming that there was a financial debt outstanding, the total value of which is Rs. 22,01,85,312/- which was not cleared by the Respondent- Multi Arc Coating and Straps Limited (Corporate Debtor). There was debt outstanding and default was claimed. The Appellant relied on various documents in support of his claim which can be seen from the Impugned Order itself. 2. The learned Adjudicating Authority heard parties and observed in paragraph -15 of the Judgment as under: " In view of the above, while going through the documents so filed by the petitioner, admittedly, corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate Debtor had clearly acknowledged the dues of the consortium Banks and wrote with regard to the action taken under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI') and suggested certain actions to banks regarding sale of properties so as to recover money. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then referred to another acknowledgement in the form of letter from the Corporate Debtor, copy of which is at page- 420. This letter is dated 09.06.2016. Learned Counsel states that this letter was also placed before the Adjudicating Authority as can be seen from the list reproduced by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph-5 of the Impugned Order. It is stated that the Adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , out of the total amount of Rs. 12.30 Cores. It is further even stated in the said proposal that the said proposed buyer will also take the responsibility of clearing all the statutory dues that has been imposed on the lands in question. In the light of above, if the bank is agreeable to abide by the onetime settlement (OTS) as agreed upon for a total amount of Rs. 12.30 Crores, wherein substantial amount has already been recovered by the Bank, then the proposed Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 891 of 2019 Page 5 of 10 buyer who is interested in purchasing the said land as agreeable to pay the differential outstanding amount from the Total Amount of Rs. 12.30 Crores as per OTS. The aforesaid proposal is without prejudice to the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI only on 10.04.2012 and Debt Recovery Tribunal was moved only in 2015. She accepts that Respondent had sent letter dated 09.06.2016 (page-420) but it is her submission that the letter cannot be construed as an acknowledgement. She states that the letter clearly states that the same is made by the Corporate Debtor without prejudice to rights and contentions of the Corporate Debtor in the Court proceedings pending. It is stated that this letter could not be treated as an acknowledgement. Learned Counsel for the Respondent is submitting that because of this, the Adjudicating Authority ignored the letter dated 09.06.2016 and she supported the judgement of the Adjudicating Authority. 7. Section 18 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this context, learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "ITC Limited Vs. Blue Coasts Hotel Ltd." [CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2928-2930 OF 2018] - MANU/SC/0263/2018. Paragraph 35 of the said judgment reads as under: ... Letter of Undertaking "Without Prejudice" "35. Much was sought to be made of the words "without prejudice" in the letter containing the undertaking that if the debt was not paid, the creditor could take over the secured assets. The submission on behalf of the debtor that the letter of undertaking was given in the course of negotiations and cannot be held to be an evidence of the acknowledgement of liability of the debtor, apart from being untenable in law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he debt even after action was initiated under the Act and even after payment of a smaller sum, the debtor has consistently refused to pay up." ... 9. Learned Counsel has then referred to judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of "Gouri Prasad Goenka Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors." in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 28 of 2019 dated 08.11.2019 and "K.R.V. Uday Charan Rao Vs. Bank of India and Ors." in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 731 of 2019 dated 13.11.2019 to submit that this Tribunal has accepted in earlier Judgment that the OTS Proposal acts as an acknowledgement. 10. We have gone through the matter and having heard learned Counsel for both the sides it appears that keeping in view of provision of Section 18 of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
