TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reflected in the Audited Financial statements of the Corporate Debtor or the Appellant. The data provided by the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor to the Resolution Professional, also nowhere match the amount of claim for interest. The interest was never booked as an expense by the Corporate Debtor (at page 25 of the Reply Affidavit) and never recognised as income by the Appellant (at page 17 of the Reply Affidavit) - The TDS was never deducted by Corporate Debtor and never availed by the Appellant - The loan agreement is ex-facie bogus, as it bears the rubber stamp of CIN of the Corporate Debtor and is neither Notarised nor registered, no stamp duty paid thereon. There was no requirement of mentioning CIN on the letterhead of the companies at the time of the purported date of the agreement and no subsequent requirement to mention the same on documents executed prior to enforcement of new Companies Act, 2013. This makes it clear that the said document at Annexure B of the Appeal is a fabricated document by ante-dating the same. The statement of accounts annexed as Annexure C at page 63 of the Appeal, purporting to be the ledger account of Appellant in the books of Corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent), as Financial Creditor before the Resolution Professional. iii) The Resolution Professional vide its communication dated 22.02.2020 only admitted the claim towards Principal amount to the tune of ₹ 4,82,93,938/- and without any cogent basis, rejected the interest component to the tune of ₹ 5,63,67,620/-. iv) The Resolution Professional vide communication dated 24.02.2020, thereby stating that while reconciling the claims it was found that the interest amount claimed by the Appellant was not booked by the Corporate debtor in its books of accounts and no TDS was deducted by the Corporate debtor and thus, the interest element sought by the Appellant was rejected. Thereafter, the Appellant has filed Application before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the same was rejected. Hence this Appeal. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and in his memo of Appeal along with Written Submissions submitted that the Appellant is a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor/Company to which loan facility was provided by the Appellant in terms of the Loan Agreement dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure-B a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in its Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2019 (at page 107, 107A, 108, 108B of the Appeal). Thus as per the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Natarajan Vs. Sama Dharman Anr. that if the amount borrowed is shown in the balance sheet, it amounts to acknowledgement and the creditor shall have a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement was made. Furthermore, as per the law laid down by this Appellate Tribunal in the case of Vivek Jha Vs. Daimler Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 756 of 2018 wherein it has been observed that In Law, an Acknowledgment in writing within expiration of prescribed period will mark a new commencement period for limitation to base a claim and the same will not create a new contract. In fact, it only extends the limitation period the claim filed by the Appellant is within limitation. 8. It is further submitted that the claim is within limitation in terms of the latest judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. Bishal Jaiswal Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 321 . 9. It is further submitted that it is sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Reply Affidavit) and never recognised as income by the Appellant (at page 17 of the Reply Affidavit); iv) The TDS was never deducted by Corporate Debtor and never availed by the Appellant; v) The loan agreement is ex-facie bogus, as it bears the rubber stamp of CIN of the Corporate Debtor and is neither Notarised nor registered, no stamp duty paid thereon. There was no requirement of mentioning CIN on the letterhead of the companies at the time of the purported date of the agreement and no subsequent requirement to mention the same on documents executed prior to enforcement of new Companies Act, 2013. This makes it clear that the said document at Annexure B of the Appeal is a fabricated document by ante-dating the same. vi) The statement of accounts annexed as Annexure C at page 63 of the Appeal, purporting to be the ledger account of Appellant in the books of Corporate Debtor is also bogus as the same does not match with the audited account nor does it match with the tally data provided by the Ex- Management of the Corporate Debtor. 13. It is further submitted that the effect of inordinate delay of 9 years in recognising of interest income by the Appellant in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should only be recognised when no significant uncertainty as to measurability or collectability exists. There revenues are recognised on the following bases: (i) Interest : On a time proportion basis taking into account the amount outstanding and the rate applicable. (ii) Royalties : On an accrual basis in accordance with the terms of the relevant agreement. (iii) Dividends from investments in shares Disclosure : When the owner s right to receive payment is established. 14. In addition to the disclosures required by Accounting Standard 1 on Disclosure of Accounting Policies (AS 1), an enterprise should also disclose the circumstances in which revenue recognition has been postponed pending the resolution of significant uncertainties. 17. It is further submitted that even accounting standard require the Appellant to recognise interest on annual basis and disclose the same in its audited accounts which admittedly has not been done, giving rise to an inference that the interest was never intended to be paid or received or at least was never given effect to for a long as 9 years and thus cannot be enforced by way of claim now, therefore, the Ld. Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me on documents executed prior to enforcement of new Companies Act, 2013. This makes it clear that the said document at Annexure B of the Appeal is a fabricated document by ante-dating the same. vi) The statement of accounts annexed as Annexure C at page 63 of the Appeal, purporting to be the ledger account of Appellant in the books of Corporate Debtor is also bogus as the same does not match with the audited account nor does it match with the tally data provided by the Ex- Management of the Corporate Debtor. It is also an admitted fact that the inordinate delay of 9 years in recognising of interest income by the Appellant in its Balance Sheet and also of no corresponding booking of interest in its accounts by the Corporate Debtor. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Urvashi Aggarwal (Since Dead) Vs. Kushagr Ansal (Successor in interest of erstwhile Defendant No. 1 Mrs. Suraj Kumari) Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2525 of 2019 held that the silence maintained by the Plaintiffs for about 12 years amounted to abandonment of the Agreement and we approve the finding in this regard made by the Trial Court. ORDER 19. Taking all these facts and on the basis of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
