9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 7 of the IBC by Central Bank of India, the Respondent No. 1 herein was admitted and appointed Mr. Vijendra Kumar Jain as Interim Resolution Professional. 2. From the perusal of the record it appears that the Appeal has been filed vide Diary No. 17773 on 13.01.2020 and the matter was listed on 17.01.2022, on that date, the Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant wants to settle the matter with the Central Bank of India, the Respondent No. 1 herein and the matter was directed to be listed on 06.02.2020. On 06.02.2020, the matter was listed before the three Hon'ble Members Bench and it was informed that no settlement has been arrived between the parties, therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 was directed to file Reply Affidavit and the matter was directed to be listed on 02.03.2020. On 02.03.2020, the Respondent has filed the Reply Affidavit and the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was directed to file Rejoinder and the matter was directed to be listed on 19.03.2020. On 19.03.2020, the Appellant was again given time to file Rejoinder and the matter was directed to be listed on 09.04.2020. Thereafter, the matter could not be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at date, the matter was adjourned to 12.01.2022 and further directed to be listed on 12.01.2022. On that date, the Judgment was reserved in this matter. 3. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Respondent No. 2 Company has availed three term loans facilities from Respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 10 Crores each aggregating to Rs. 80 Crores. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 2 executed security documents for the grant of the loan amount by hypothecating the programme rights and pledging of its shares. ii) Further case is that due to economic factors and other reasons beyond the control of Respondent No. 2 Company, as described in detail hereunder, the Respondent No. 2 could not service its debt to the Respondent No. 1 Bank. iii) In confirmation of its bona fides to discharge its repayment obligations, the Respondent No. 2 Company on various occasions approached the Respondent No. 1 for restructuring/review of the loan amount. However, the Respondent No. 1 neither rejected nor responded to the Respondent No. 2's restructuring proposal of the loan amount. iv) Further case is that the Respondent No. 1 without giving any intimation/notice to Respondent No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 SAB Events 2,85,000 28.33 Rs. 80,74,050 Total 21,85,000 Rs. 21,62,19,050 6. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 Bank allegedly declared and classified the account of the Appellant Company as Non-Performing Asset on 28.09.2017, however, no notice of information in this regard was given to the Appellant. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 Bank has been acting in most arbitrary and illegal manner. The Appellant, on several occasions, had requested the Respondent No. 1 Bank to furnish details of sale of pledged shares. However, the Respondent No. 1 Bank for reasons best known to itself did not provide any information to the Appellant and the Appellant could not take any steps to oversee that maximum amount could have been realized against such sale of shares. 7. It is further submitted that the Resolution Professional and members of Committee of Creditors have acted in utter disregard and gross violation of order dated 17.01.2020 whereby this Appellate Tribunal had mandated that the Respondent No. 2 Company shall be maintained as going concern entity and shall carry out its functions accordingly. Despite such clear and unequivocal directions, the Resolut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not make any proposal of settlement with any other Financial Creditor as confirmed by them in the Committee of Creditors 13th meeting dated 17.12.2020. 10. It is further submitted that the Appellant's Company availed three term loans of Rs. 10 Crores each aggregating to Rs. 30 Crores from the Respondent Bank for financing their acquisition/production of proprietary rights/materials of entertainment content on primary security of hypothecation of programme rights and other entertainment content to be acquired by the Corporate Debtor Company and a collateral security of the pledge of shares in Shri Adhikari Brothers Television Network Limited and other two sister concerns. 11. It is further submitted that the account became a Non-Performing Asset on 28.09.2017 when total outstanding in all loan accounts was a sum of Rs. 25.03 Crores. The Corporate Debtor Company and its directors including the Appellant, who were in constant touch with the Bank had been citing one or other excuse for non-payment like implementation of the GST, deteriorating market conditions, filling revenue/viewership and had been seeking one or other accommodation from the Bank which the Financial Creditor B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions, no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is fit to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 15. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 - Resolution Professional during the course of argument and in his Affidavit, it has been stated that after issuance of notice in the present Appeal on 17.01.2020, the Deponent continued with conducting the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor, while ensuring that it remained a going concern. While attempts at settlement were going on between the parties herein as well as other members of the Committee of Creditors, the Deponent continued with holding CoC meetings regularly as required under the provisions of the IBC. 16. Further it has been stated that in the 21st CoC meeting held at Mumbai on 24.08.2021, since the only Resolution Plan put forth by one M/s Pen India Ltd. was rejected by the CoC with 100% votes, a resolution was passed for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and the CoC advised the Deponent to circulate the resolution of approval of Liquidation through E-voting and accordingly, e-voting took place on 27.08.2021 and the Resolution was approved with 79.75% voting in favour of liq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th by one M/s Pen India Ltd. was rejected by the CoC with 100% votes, a resolution was passed for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and the CoC advised the Resolution Professional to circulate the resolution of approval of Liquidation through E-voting and accordingly, e-voting took place on 27.08.2021 and the Resolution was approved with 79.75% voting in favour of liquidation (Annexure-2 at page 13 to 21 of the Affidavit). In pursuance of the above Resolution passed by the CoC, the Resolution Professional Mr. Vijendra Kumar Jain filed an Application bearing I.A. No. 2179/2021 seeking liquidation of Sri Adhikari Brothers Television Network Limited (Corporate Debtor) under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 praying for following reliefs: " a. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to order and direct that the Corporate Debtor be ordered and directed to go under liquidation as per Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; b. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant liberty to Resolution Professional to file additional affidavit for appointment of Liquidator and estimated liquidation cost; & c. For such other and further reliefs as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
