TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SASF) (hereinafter referred as "Financial Creditor") for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (in short "CIRP") against M/s. L.S.P. Agro Limited (hereinafter referred as "Corporate Debtor") on the ground the Corporate Debtor defaulted repayment of Rs. 11,05,92,701 as on 29.04.2019. 2. The Applicant case is that, IDBI had sanctioned a Rupee Term Loan of Rs. 650 lacs to the Corporate Debtor based on Loan Agreement dated 06.03.1998, in which, Rs. 2,12,00,000 was disbursed on 21.03.1998, Rs. 38,00,000 on 23.03.1998, Rs. 2,00,00,000 on 20.08.1998, Rs. 1,00.00,000 on 6.11.1998, Rs. 85,00,000 on 17.12.1999, and Rs. 15,00,000 on 08.12.1999, totaling to Rs. 6,50,00,000, which is the loan agreement amount. In continuation of the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. To prove that, this debt is claimed within the limitation, the Corporate Debtor has filed Letter of Requests through various One Time Settlement (OTS) proposals dated 10.09.2008, 27.01.2014, 27.05.2014, 08.07.2016, 30.10.2016 and 14.10.2017. 6. Despite several letters of request being issued for settlement to the Corporate Debtor, nothing fructified, and the Financial Creditor finally on 23.01.2019 filed this application before this Tribunal to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. 7. Pending this Section 7, IBC application before this Adjudicating Authority, the Original Application filed by the Applicant before DRT-II, Chennai has been allowed in favor of the Applicant and against the Corporate Debtor on 29.04.2019. 8. As aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s shown as taken in the year 2000 and admittedly this loan account being declared as NPA before 2001, and thereafter IDBI Bank having already filed OA 78/2002 before DRT-I, Chennai (subsequently has become OA172/2007 before DRT-II, Chennai), the same being pending before DRT Chennai, the Corporate Debtor Counsel says this claim is hit by Limitation because pendency of Suits before some other forum will not save the limitation. Even assuming that this Applicant version is correct, the Corporate Debtor Counsel says, to say that the OTS letters given with a promise of repayment of OTS amount saves limitation, this Applicant has to show that acknowledgement or endorsement given by Corporate Debtor from the date of default until the date of OTS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inancial institution notified by the Central Government Authority. As to Authority to file this Application, for the signatory of this Application being validly authorized, the Corporate Debtor cannot take it as defense to say the person signed the application is not competent to file this Application. 14. It is not the first case filed by this Financial Institution, it has filed several cases against various borrowers before various Courts on the stressed assets transferred to it by IDBI. Today it cannot be said that this Applicant Trust cannot file this case on its own. As to transfer of the stressed assets of the IDBI Bank, it has been categorically shown in the Notification dated 29.09.2004 showing transfer of funds saved in the Repeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench can even admit this Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application based on the direction given the DRT against the Corporate Debtor by taking the Order passed by the DRT for initiation of CERP into consideration. For the Debt Recovery Tribunal having passed the order for payment, we safely infer that this debt is not time barred, therefore, we hereby admit this Insolvency Bankruptcy Application. 17. In Section 7 cases, if debt and default are proved as in existence, even if any difference to the quantum of the claim mentioned in the application and the quantum of claim due and outstanding against the Corporate Debtor, for the Applicant having proved the existence debt and default, merely by seeing the difference in the quantum, the Petition ....