9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Application, which are relevant to the issue in question, are as follows: (1) The Applicant, as Operational Creditor, has filed CP(IB)No.165/BB/2018 by seeking to initiate CIRP in respect of B.T. & F.C. Pvt. Ltd(Respondent No.1) on the ground that it has committed default for an amount of Rs. 5,72,49,000/. After considering, the Adjudicating Authority, has admitted the case vide order dated 27th September, 2019 by initiating CIRP, appointing Mr. Pankaj Srivastava as IRP, imposing moratorium etc. He was subsequently confirmed as RP by the CoC of the Respondent No.1. The CoC of Respondent No.1 consists, of State Bank of India (Respondent No.3), Ugro Capital Limited (Respondent No.4) by holding 27 % and 73 % voting rights respectively. (2) The Respondent Nos. 3 &4 have filed claims before Respondent No.6 in respect of their financial debts owed by Respondent No.1. Further, Respondent No.4 filed CP(IB)No.135/BB/2018 before this Tribunal, U/s 7 of the Code seeking initiation of CIRP in respect of Respondent No.2 on the ground that it had committed default of a total outstanding amount of Rs. 25,81,85,297/-. This Adjudicating Authority admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he land owned by Bangalore Dehydration and Drying Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd, (the Respondent No.2). The unit in Hiriyur is built on the land which is owned by Vanivilas Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited. However, that lease/rental agreement between the R1 & R2 with respect to the distillery unit situated at Peenya is not available with the Respondent No.6. That the Financial Statements and bank accounts of the Respondent No.1 does not reflect any periodic rentals being accrued nor paid to Respondent No.2 with respect to the unit situated at Peenya. The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the plant and machineries of the Peenya Unit and Hiriyur Unit, which has been pledged as collateral with Respondent No.3 along with other assets of the Respondent No.1. The Liquidation value of the plan and machineries of the Peenya Unit is about 23.96 Lakhs as obtained by Respondent No.6 during CIRP process. (3) The Respondent No.6 was not able to make the valuation of the plant and machineries of the Hiriyur unit since the appointed valuers of Respondent No.6 were stopped by the Representatives of M/s. Vanivilas Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited from entering the premises. Further, Respondent No.2 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionship between these Companies, in the form of Holding or Associate Company. (3) Further, Respondent No.2 had given its industrial shed constructed on a small portion of its land to the Respondent No. 1 on lease. Except this arrangement, there is no other connection between the Companies and it is a normal business practice to lease the industrial shed, for earning some extra revenue. Providing the industrial shed on lease does not mean that the businesses of both R1 and R2 are interlinked and intertwined. R1 and R2 are independent legal entities, set up with different objectives. Even in the audited Financials of Respondent No.2, there is no mention about B.T. & F.C. Pvt. Ltd. as related party. (4) The averment that the assets and liabilities of the Corporate Debtors are completely knotted into each other is a false submission and is completely misleading, as both the business are completely different and there is no linkage in any manner between these two business entities. As there is no relationship between these Companies, and due to the default made by M/s. B.T. & F.C. Limited to the Central Excise Department for not paying its dues, the Central excise Department sealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d INR 1,76,10,651 filed by the Excise Department on 08.07.2020. The Land admeasuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated Sy. No. 15, 1st Phase, Peenya Village, Yeshwanthpur, Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and any other asset should be brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal by R7 i.e., the RP of Respondent No.2 company. Further INR 13,45,11,636 filed by R3 and INR 36,92,94,921 filed by the Respondent No.4. 2) Both the Companies are promoted by the same family i.e., Mr. M.V Muralidhar and Mrs. Padma Muralidar. Further Mr. M.V. Muralidar and Mrs. Padma Muralidhar holds 65% of the shares of the R1 Company and 71% shareholding of R2 Company. The Respondent No. 2 Company owns the land admeasuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated in Peenya and has constructed a warehouse in the land. 3) The assets of R1 Company are only the plant and machinery which are valued at INR 23.96 lacks by the RP. The assets of R2 Company are only immovable property, while R1 Company has only land. Therefore, the possibility of getting resolution plan with the CIRP is limited. On the other hand, if both the companies are clubbed and offered as a single unit for CIRP, there is a likelihood of getting a resolution plan. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing very well about the rights and status of Operational Creditor, under CIRP, under the Code, has filed the Company Petition, even though Arbitration Award was given in its favour. The Applicant has not questioned the order passed in other case but pursued its case for admission independently. The Applicant, after realising that there is hardly any property worth available in the Company against which it has filed Petition, and after knowing liquidation estate of Respondent No.1 is not even 1% of the total admitted claims of the Creditors of the Respondent No.1, has yet again made another frivolous effort by the present by suppressing material facts. The Applicant has come to the Adjudicating Authority with unclean hands. 10. The Applicant has filed Minutes of 6th COC of Respondent No. 1 held on 25th February, 2020, wherein it was unanimously decided that they don't want to extend time for submission of Resolution Plans; to go for Liquidation by proposing to appoint Ms. R. Bhuvaneswari as Liquidator in the place of Srivasthava. Therefore, Respondent No. 6 has hardly locus standi to defend the case of Applicant. 11. We have carefully perused the judgements relied upon by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
