TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich were already rejected by the adjudicating authority could not have been the basis of the order of admission. The NCLAT also wrongly recorded that there was no further evidence in support of the fact that any amount was outstanding. Further, the NCLAT also held that a document filed in the earlier petition that was dismissed as withdrawn could not have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The NCLAT is wrong on all these counts. The NCLAT order is set aside and that of the NCLT is restored. The resolution proceedings will continue from the stage at which they were interrupted. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9425 OF 2019 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1911 OF 2020 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3112 OF 2020 (Diary No. 45282 of 2019) - - - Dated:- 8-9-2020 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 2008 till date, an amount of ₹ 65.60 crores have been repaid by it. A supplementary affidavit was filed by the appellant dated 06.06.2018 which, owing to technical defects, was rejected. A second supplementary affidavit of 03.08.2018 was therefore filed, replacing this affidavit, in which it was explained that, as a matter of fact, the corporate debtor has made payment of ₹ 18,86,00,000/- on 13.04.2016 and 16.04.2016, and thereafter of ₹ 16,80,62,000/- from 05.07.2016 and 19.07.2016, as would be evident from pages 11 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the corporate debtor. Thus, the sum of ₹ 35,66,62,000/- which has been paid by the corporate debtor to the appellant is on account of its previous outs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofessional. A Committee of Creditors was also thereafter appointed. 6. The impugned judgment referred to the NCLT order and then held as follows: 19. Thus, it is clear that document which was already rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, has been made the basis for passing the Order of Admission, which is not permissible under law. 20. Based on loan Agreement dated 1st April 2016 the amount ₹ 18,86,00,000/- was disbursed. The bank certificate filed by Corporate Debtor shows that while amount has been returned back. But the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that a sum of ₹ 18,86,00,000/- was again disbursed to the Corporate Debtor is not supported by any evidence. The Corporate Debtor has filed the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her evidence in support of the fact that any amount was outstanding. Further, the NCLAT also held that a document filed in the earlier petition that was dismissed as withdrawn could not have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The NCLAT is wrong on all these counts. As has been stated earlier, documents evidencing an outstanding loan amount were produced; a supplementary affidavit dated 03.08.2018 was also relied upon; and the admission made in the counter affidavit that was made in the first round of litigation, can by no means be described as a document in an earlier petition that could not be relied upon. The document was not a pleading by the appellant it was a counter affidavit by the corporate debtor in which a cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
