TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In respect to the claim of ₹ 20.52 crores as on 13.07.2017 which included fund based outstanding of ₹ 1.46 crore and non-fund-based outstanding of ₹ 19.06 crore. The fund-based facilities have been paid off by the company management i.e. the erstwhile Resolution Professional. Hence, it is incorrect to states that the respondent has appropriated the fund towards the loan account during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Since, it was a unilateral act of the erstwhile Resolution Professional who has paid during the moratorium period. So, this respondent categorically states that they have not violated the provisions of Section 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, the erstwhile Resolution Professional has inadvertently paid the loan amount. During the moratorium period various payments towards non-fund and fund-based accounts of the respondents were credited by the erstwhile Resolution Professional. Hence, these payments ought to be reversed as receivables of the Corporate Debtor. The meeting to sort out the issue between them have failed. All banks are directed to reverse the due amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the Hon'ble NCLAT in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatsubramaniam, Resolution Professional for Amtek Auto Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 267 of 2017. The applicant/respondents both have filed statement of account for the relevant period. The reading of the same, it is clear that during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process various credits were given towards the loan account of the Corporate Debtor by all the four respondents. However, it is said by the respondents that some of the payments were paid by the erstwhile Resolution Professional on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, it is not appropriated towards the loan due of the Corporate Debtor by the respondents. Hence, no violation of Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 4. This Adjudicating Authority by Order dated 27.09.2019 directed the Resolution Professional to call for a meeting between the applicant and the respondents to sort out the issue regarding the actual amount to be reversed by each respondent. The meeting was held on 9th October, 2019 and all the four respondents participated in the meeting. The Resolution Professional submitted the outstanding p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 7. The 1st respondent, the Central Bank of India states that the Corporate Debtor was availing Cash Credit Hypothecation facility under Consortium, and Term Loan outside the consortium. After the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the respondent/bankers alongwith the other consortium bankers have frozen the operations of the Corporate Debtor. The cash credit facility was continuing on the basis of the renewal. At the time of filing of this reply, there is no facility offered by respondents to the Corporate Debtor. The liability of 26.07 crores which included Non-fund-based limit of ₹ 13 crores. The liability came down to 12.37 crores when the LC Bills matured for payment on due dates and the Company paid the Bill under LC out of its normal cash flow as a going concern. Hence, it cannot be termed as recovery of the liability by the bank. A legally binding and legally unavoidable inter-bank commitment made in the LCs issued by the Central Bank of India on behalf of the Company ought to be honoured. Hence, the respondent was compelled to re-call the advances and advice the borrower company to repay the dues in full. The liability of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 20.52 crores as on 13.07.2017 which included fund based outstanding of ₹ 1.46 crore and non-fund-based outstanding of ₹ 19.06 crore. The fund-based facilities have been paid off by the company management i.e. the erstwhile Resolution Professional. Hence, it is incorrect to states that the respondent has appropriated the fund towards the loan account during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Since, it was a unilateral act of the erstwhile Resolution Professional who has paid during the moratorium period. So, this respondent categorically states that they have not violated the provisions of Section 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, the erstwhile Resolution Professional has inadvertently paid the loan amount. 10. There is no representation for Syndicate Bank. However, from the foregoing submissions of the respondents, it is clear that during the moratorium period various payments towards non-fund and fund-based accounts of the respondents were credited by the erstwhile Resolution Professional. Hence, these payments ought to be reversed as receivables of the Corporate Debtor. The meeting to sort out the issue between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
