9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate ORDER (Virtual Mode) Heard. 2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant who was on suspended management of the Corporate Debtor-Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Appeal has been filed against impugned Order dated 20.04.2021 passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Court No. I) in C.P. (IB) No. 179/7/NCLT/AHM/2019. By the said Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority admitted Application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC in short) filed by the Respondent Punjab National Bank (Hereinafter referred as Bank) against the Corporate Debtor-Telstar Industries Pvt. Ltd. Punjab National Bank claimed before the Adjudicating Authority that it had approved various fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reed to proceed further with the Loan and the argument is that date of default if any could be only after the acceptance of this OTS which is dated 29th March, 2016 and could not be 27th December, 2014 which is a prior date. Thus, the Learned Counsel claimed that Application deserved to be rejected as date of default stated in Format of Section 7 application was wrong. 6. Against this the Learned Counsel for the Bank has argued and supported the reasoning recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order which has inter alia relied on Judgment in the matter of Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9198 of 2019) to find that the Application was within Limitation. 7. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g is within limitation in view of Section 18 of the Law of Limitation. 14. Learned Counsel further submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. has held that if a bank had filed proceeding under SARFAESI Act in debts Recovery Tribunal and then files proceeding under Section 7 in the National Company Law Tribunal, then the period during which the Bank's proceedings under SARFAESI Act was pending, has to be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation as per Article 14 of Law of Limitation. In this case, if that period is excluded, then this application cannot be said to be a time barred. Moreover, Hon'ble NCLAT in case of Kishanlal Likhmichand Bothra Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8,39,68,045=92 is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has committed default in paying the same. This application is defect filed within the limitation. Hence, we admit the corporate Debtor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process." 8. For such reasons, the Adjudicating Authority found that there was debt due and default and the Application filed by the Bank was complete and that the same deserves to be admitted. 9. It can be seen that there was an earlier Offer of settlement dated 09th November, 2015 and there was yet another offer by way of OTS on 29th March, 2016. After the grant of Loan, the Corporate Debtor made default in payment of instalments. The Bank relied on the OTS offer dated 09th Novembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
