9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion are follows. The Respondent originally incorporated on 22.01.1985 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a Private Limited Company under the name Sri Vasavi Steel Industries Private Limited. Subsequently it was converted into a Public Limited Company w.e.f. 19.04.1994. Later on the name of the Company changed to Sri Vasavi Industries Limited on 15.01.1998. The Company inter alia carried on the business as Manufacturers, Producers, Re-Rollers, Importers, Exporters, Dealers, either retail or wholesale of Steel, Copper, Aliminum, Ferrous and Non-Ferrous metals etc. It approached the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) for grant of credit facilities for financing its projects. The IDBI granted three Term Loan facilities i.e. Term Loan F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... security agreements. It committed default for reasons beyond its control. Default resulted due to extraneous factors namely, slump in the Ferro Alloys industry, due to shortage of electricity and devastation caused by natural calamity in the form of cyclone 'Hud Hud' in October 2014. The Respondent established a new unit in West Bengal because of the power incentive given by the then West Bengal Government. The Ferro Alloys industry is highly power intensive with more than 60% of working capital going towards power purchase. Thus, unfortunately the unit could not get working capital limits and ultimately went for BIFR. The BIFR declared the unit as sick and advised the Corporate Debtor to submit rehabilitation proposal. The proposal was sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tune of Rs. 58,30,83,741/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Crores Thirty Lakhs Eight Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty One only) with interest. The learned DRT by its order dated 06.11.2017 allowed the Application ex parte against the Respondent and ordered recovery of the amount with pendent lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from 30.06.2004 till realisation. According to the Petitioner the amount stood at Rs. 499,80,36,157 (Rupees Four Hundred Ninety Nine Crores Eighty Lakhs Thirty six Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Seven only) as on 01.04.2018. 6. The only defence taken by the Respondent is that the debt being barred by limitation an application under section 7 of the Code could not be maintained. The 'debt' defined under section 3( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the defence contention that the debt was time barred cannot be accepted. The issue is answered in the negative. 8. In an application under Section 7 of the Code the reason for the inability of the Respondent in paying off the debt is not required to be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority. What is required to be seen is the default. In this case the default has been satisfactorily proved. Thus the petition needs to be admitted. The Petitioner has suggested the name of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and has also enclosed his written consent. No disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed IRP as ascertained from the website of the IBBI. Hence ordered. ORDER The Company Petition is admitted on contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
