9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Rajahmundry - 533 103 and the Respondent is a Private Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 60, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 006. Both the respondents are having their registered office at Chennai. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor while reiterating the above, submitted that the Corporate Debtor is unable to pay its debts and therefore prayed to commence Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. 4. The Corporate Debtor filed an Affidavit wherein it has stated that the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor far exceeded its assets thus eroding its substratum substantially. Though not supporting the present application, the Corporate Debtor submitted that it has no option except to acknowledge the existence of an Arbitral Award against it and in the light of its financial position, is unable to make payments in furtherance of the said award. The Corporate Debtor does not possess sufficient financial capacity to pay off all liabilities that may ensue upon it. Therefore, a Corporate Debtor prayed this Tribunal to pass orders as it may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the loan given by them to 1 Respondent. The claimant filed a suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras but could not succeed. The matter was referred to arbitration between the Claimant and the Respondents in this case along with two other respondents. During the pendency of the arbitration, the respondents executed loan agreement in favour of the petitioner wherein the petitioner was the lender and 1* Respondent was the principal borrower with 24 Respondent being the guarantor. The loan agreement evidence the fact that a sum of Rs. 84,79,08,065/- (Rupees Eighty Four crores Seventy Nine Lakhs Eight thousand Sixty Five only).The 1* Respondent agreed to repay the loan along with 24% interest from 15" December 2008 till the actual date of repayment with a tenure of 365 days for the repayment of the amount to the petitioner. 7. In the meantime, the Sole Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice PK Balasubramanian (Retd. Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court) passed an award on 18.02.2012 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act1996. Pursuant to the arbitration award, the claimant and respondents executed a Memorandum of Settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete the sale with permission of relevant courts and utilise the same proceeds to settle all the creditors. The Financial Creditor had filed application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 before the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry seeking protection of the immoveable properties which were mortgaged by the respondents in favour of the Financial Creditor. The Financial Creditor also sought for injunction against the 1 Respondent and 2"! Respondent and sought for direction against them to register the memorandum of deposit and file the relevant forms with the Registrar of Companies. On 10" May 2018, before the District Court, the respondents undertook to comply with the directions passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrators within two weeks. The petitioner had also filed the copy of the undertaking given by the respondents in the District Court of Rajahmundry (Annexure A.4). The respondents had also registered the memorandum of deposit with the Registrar of Assurances. 10. In spite of orders passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator and the judgement of the Principal Judge, the amount outstanding is yet to be paid to the petitioners. Hence the petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CPs mentioned above. The petitioner in both CPs has made the same amount of claim against both Respondents (the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Guarantor). Hence there is a need to issue common order so as to facilitate the complete recovery of the admitted claim and other claims which may be raised by others. 15. In both the CPs name of the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) proposed is the same. Hence we appoint Mr. Nurani Subramanian Suryanarayananas IRP proposed by the Applicants. There is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the IRP and is his name is reflected in IBBI website. The IRP is directed to take charge of the Respondent 1/Corporate Debtor's and Respondent 2/Guarantor's management immediately. He is also directed to cause public announcement as prescribed under Section 15 of the IBC, 2016 within 3 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order and call for submissions of claim in the manner as prescribed. 16. We declare the moratorium which shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for the purpose referred to in Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 against Respondent 1 and Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
