9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 incorporated on 31.02.1970, having Identification No AAACP0165G. The applicant is having its place of business 1 Floor, Rajendra Bhawan Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110125. 3. The Corporate Debtor is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 on 07.07.1998, having CIN U18101DL1998PTC094872, inter alia involved in the business of export-oriented unit. The corporate debtor is having its registered office at 14, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi. 4. The applicant submits that credit facilities like Cash Credit, Packing Credit, FOBNLC/FOBUNLC/BDLC, Sub Limit FOBP/FOUBP/FOBD, ODD (clean/Docs/OBD sub limits of FOBP/FOUBP), Letter of Credit (Inland/Foreign) (DA/DP), Letter of Guarantee, Term Loan, Car Loan were availed by the corporate debtor and were enhanced/renewed/reviewed from time to time. 5. The applicant submits that the balance and security confirmation letters dated 01.02.2016 & 01.12.2016 were executed by the corporate debtor in favour of the applicant. 6. The applicant submits that the corporate debtor executed various security documents in favor of applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Securitization Act, complains to be beyond the prescribed limit/irregular, is the Cash-Credit limit and no other/further limit. iv. The corporate debtor submits that aggrieved by such unlawful and illegal declaration of 'non-performing' status and subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization Act by the Applicant, the corporate debtor filed Securitization Application (SA. No. 91 2017) under Section 17 of the Securitization Act, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi challenging such proceedings initiated by the Applicant. The Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2018 has held as 'As seen from the above factual and legal positions the security applicants have established from the Statement of Account that the account was wrongly notified as NPA on 2nd December, 2016 and as such, the entire action initiated by the respondent bank be vitiated and by the wrong declaration of the account as NPA further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are unsustainable. " and it is held that the declaration of the account of security applicants as NPA is illegal and consequently, the proceedings taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present application. iv. It is worth mentioning that the Applicant issued notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFEASI Act, wherein the date of NPA was mentioned as 02.12.2016. A reply/objection to the said notice was sent by the Corporate Debtor on 04.03.2017 and nowhere, in the said reply the date of NPA was challenged and thus, the same stands admitted. v. That in part IV of the application, the applicant has specifically stated the amount due as Rs. 28,96,32,153.00/-. There is no denial on the part of the Corporate Debtor regarding the amount due on the date of filing of the application. This fact stands admitted on part of the corporate debtor. 10. The applicant has filed written submissions and has averred as follows: i. The record of default with the information utility amongst other modes may be used to demonstrate evidence of default (Part V of Form 1) i.e., the Application by Financial Creditor to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. That the authentication regarding the information of default (with regard to the corporate debtor herein) as required under the IU Regulations was completed by the information utility on 24.12.2019. The record of default for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, it is beyond doubt that the default has occurred with respect to the payment of the financial debt due to the Applicant. Debt is confirmed as per the confirmation letter issued by the corporate debtor on 01.12.2016 and also the debt is authenticated as per the records of the information utility services (the certificates annexed),there is no doubt left that the debt is due. Even after issuance of notice under section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, the debt is not serviced and proceedings before DRT were initiated. Though the DRT has declared that the declaration of account of corporate debtor as NPA was illegal and the same was quashed, but the fact still remains that the debt is unpaid. The corporate debtor has nowhere disputed about availing the facilities from the bank. The only defense by the corporate debtor is that the account of corporate debtor is no more NPA account hence, section 7 application will not lie. It is amply made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for admitting application under section 7 of the Code the account of corporate debtor need not be NPA account. Even without classifying the account, as NPA, merely on proof of the default with respect to deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
