9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed under Section60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 by the applicant who is a shareholder of Corporate Debtor-M/s. Sargam Builders Pvt Ltd. seeking the following reliefs: "Set aside the claims of the respondents 2 to 7 admitted by the 1st respondent as per Annexure A1 and to adjudicate such claims and fix the same on the basis of the documents/evidences produced by the applicant and the documents or other evidences as may be produced by the respondents" MA(IBC) 39/KOB/2021 has been filed by the applicant who is the applicant in IA(IBC)/161/KOB/2021 seeking the following reliefs: "Direct the respondent to admit the claim of the appellant for Rs. 2,93,17,492.65 as submitted in Annexure A12 FORM D." The applicant was the Managing Director of M/s. Sargam Builders Pvt Ltd. at the time of the commencement of CIR proceedings. The applicant is also a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred as CD), to whom the CD owes a sum of Rs. 2.20 Crore. 2. The 1st respondent was appointed as the Liquidator, who was originally the IRP, and then RP and later appointed as the Liquidator vide order dated 16.09.2020. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that amounts under a term loan and a bank guarantee amount are due to it. In order to substantiate the claim under the term loan in the CIR proceedings, the 2nd respondent bank produced the statement of accounts maintained by it under the provisions of the Banker's Book of Evidence Act.The said statement of account would show that the amount alleged to be due to the bank under term loan as on 30.04.2013 was only Rs.27,87,321/-. The document produced by the 2nd respondent bank to justify the charging of interest was the promissory note dated 02/11/2009 executed by the CD. The promissory note would indicate that, the agreed rate of interest is only 13.25% p.a. When the amount alleged to be due to the 2ndrespondent bank is calculated on the basis of the above data and details, viz. the principal amount of Rs.27,87,321/- and the interest @ 13.25 % p a. on quarterly compounding, the amount alleged to be due to the 2nd respondent under term loan would be only Rs.67,40,912/-. To fortify his argument, he has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2002) 1 SCC 367wherein it is held that the pendente lite interest shall normally be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the Writ Petition.Now the order of this Tribunal in MA No.207/KOB/2020 in IA No. 129/KOB/2020 in TIBA/07/KOB/2019 and IA (IBC) 101/KOB/2021 is challenged in appeal before Hon'ble NCLAT-Chennai. 11. The Liquidator further stated that the statement in the applicant that he was unaware of the admission of claim of Federal Bank and Homebuyers under liquidation is completely misleading, as the applicants including the applicant herein had clearly mentioned in MA No.207/KOB/2020 which was filed subsequent to liquidation order dated 16.09.2020 the entirety of the claim of Federal Bank and Homebuyers as time-barred. 12. The learned counsel for the Liquidator argued that the applicant has availed the loan from the Federal Bank by executing the loan agreement and hence Liquidator cannot apply ROI arbitrarily. As per Section 33 (5) Subject to Section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the Corporate Debtor.The contention of the petitioner that pendente lite interest is to be applied by the Liquidator is absolutely baseless without the support of any final decree from the judicial forum. The Liquidator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nking principles, a Bank is entitled to charge higher rate of interest depending on the upward revision of the interest rates charged in various accounts on account of revision in interest rates made by RBI/Bank.Identical contentions were raised at the time of admission and initiation of CIRP and the same contentions are being reiterated again despite the dismissal of MA 207/KOB/2020 and IA (IBC) 101/KOB/2021.Respondent submitted that the Petitioner is indulging in filing frivolous applications to delay and defeat the proceedings of' the Liquidator. 18. The learned Liquidator in his reply further stated that instead of co-operating with the Liquidator to complete the sale process, the applicant herein is filing applications after applications before all judicial forums with an intention to delay the liquidation and sale of assets. He has further stated that from the very inception of the CIR Process, the applicant herein has refused to co-operate with the RP/Liquidator and has been wilfully violating the provisions of the Code.The applicant is one of the members of the Stakeholder's Committee and had attended all the Five previous Stakeholders' Committee Meetings. Hence, the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2021 dismissed that MA with costs of Rs. 25,000/- which according to the Liquidator, the applicants therein have not paid. Without complying with the direction in that order, the applicant has again moved this Tribunal taking some other contentions regarding the non-acceptance of his claim and the interest levied by the Federal Bank. The Liquidator has satisfactorily clarified why his claim was not accepted and the interest charged by the Bank is as per the agreement between the Bank and the Corporate Debtor. It appears to us, that the only intention of the applicant is to delay the proceedings in one way or the other approaching various forums including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein all his attempts were failed. 22. From the verification of the earlier proceedings of this matter, it is seen that the Suspended Directors are not at all co-operating in the CIR Process and they were only on the lookout of creating hurdle to the continuation of CIR Process. Moreover, the applicant herein is a shareholder of the Company and as rightly pointed out by the Respondentsthat he is not entitled to claim any relief against the CoC or the conduct of the CIRP. 23. Without attendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
