TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation of CIRP into consideration. For the Debt Recovery Tribunal having passed the order for payment, it is safely inferred that this debt is not time barred, therefore, we hereby admit this Insolvency Bankruptcy Application. 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 shall not be dismissed against the Corporate Debtor - Moreover IRP/RP, as the case may be, is entitled to verify the claim and modify the same, therefore the difference in quantum cannot militate against the purpose and object of admission u/s. 7 of the Code. Application admitted - moratorium declared. - IBA/210/2019 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2020 - B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, Actg. President and S. Vijayaraghavan, Member (T) For Appellant/Respondent: E. Om Prakash, Sr. Advocate, P. Elayarajkumar, K. Ramesh, Advocates Ramalingam Associates, R. Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advocate and S. Praveen Kumar, Advocate ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing this Applicant as a Financial Institution as defined u/s. 2(h) (2) of the Recovery Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993. 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 against these submissions, the Corporate Debtor has stated that this Applicant has no locus to file this application on behalf of the Creditor i.e. Industrial Development Bank of India which came into existence in the year 1964, because this Act was repealed and the undertaking of Industrial Development Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1966. 11. For this amount not being paid, the Applicant has stated that the amount claimed to be defaulted in repaying by the Corporate Debtor is ₹ 215,80,69,513 comprising of principal, interest, further interest and liquidated damages as on October 01, 2018. 12. On hearing both sides, now the points for consideration are: a) Whether, this IBA is maintainable by the Applicant or not for the Corporate Debtor Counsel says the Applicant has no locus to file this Application. b) Whether the claim is hit by limitation or not; 13. It is a Trust constituted by the Central Government of India for taking over the loan given by IDBI, this Trust being constituted by the Central Government of India for the purpose of acquiring the stressed assets of IDBI; it cannot be called as non-entity to file an application before this Bench or otherwise Adjudicating Authority. Even in Sec. 3(14) of the Code, any institution as the Central Government by notification specifies as the financial institution, such institution shall be treated as financial institution notified by the Central Government Authority. As to Authority to file this Application, for the signatory of this Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 shall not be dismissed against the Corporate Debtor. Moreover IRP/RP, as the case may be, is entitled to verify the claim and modify the same, therefore the difference in quantum cannot militate against the purpose and object of admission u/s. 7 of the Code. 18. In view of the same, this application is hereby, admitted by appointing Mrs. Sathyadevi Alamuri as Interim Resolution Professional by looking at the consent given by the Insolvency Professional with the directions as follows: I. that moratorium is hereby declared prohibiting all of the following actions, namely, (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
