TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and is an act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individual in a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship. The aim and object of the Code is not for recovery of debts but for Resolution of Corporate Persons - the financial Creditor/ Operational Creditor/Corporate Persons can file an application under Section 7 ,9 10 of the I B Code, 2016 before the respective Adjudicating Authorities even though in respect of same any proceeding pending before other forums on the ground that the provisions of I B Code, 2016 is overriding effect of other laws. In view of the aforesaid reasons the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period of limitation i.e. 3 years from the date of default as per Section 137 of the limitation Act since the limitation act applicable to the proceedings under IBC. Therefore, the application filed before the Adjudicating Authority is within the period of limitation and accordingly the point is answered against the Appellant. Whether the order under challenge is reasoned order dealing with all issues as raised by the Appellant/Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the application filed by the 1st Respondent against the Corporate Debtor is a well reasoned order and there are no legal or factual infirmity in the order and no interference is called for. Appeal dismissed. - Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Bank initiated proceedings under Section 7 of I B Code,2016 before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Chennai) alleging certain defaults. However, the 1st Respondent did not brought to the knowledge of the Hon ble NCLT that it had earlier issued a demand notice to the Appellant under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI ACT, 2002 on 30.08.2018 for a default of Rs. 14,14,61,066/- followed by paper publication dated 27.09.2018. The authorised officer took symbolic possession of the property mortgaged as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. Thereafter, the subject property was attached with DRT Madurai Bench. 3. It is submitted that the Hon ble NCLT did not consider the fact that OA No. 497 of 2019 on the file of DRT Madurai against the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation? (iv) Whether the order under challenge is reasoned order dealing with all issues as raised by the Appellant/Corporate Debtor? 7. Now we take up point no.(i) It is the case of the Appellant that the financial Creditor issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002 for a default of Rs. 14,14,61,066/- for almost 12 accounts and the financial Creditor has also filed an application bearing OA No. 497 of 2019 before the DRT Madurai against the Appellant/Corporate Debtor for recovery of debts Rs. 19,73,47,599/- and filing the application before the Adjudicating Authority for default in loan amount to the tune of Rs. 8,04,86,434/- with interest for the very same loan facility would amount to forum shopping and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de, 2016 is overriding effect of other laws. In view of the aforesaid reasons the Appellant cannot take a stand that the proceedings are pending before DRT and PBPT and the application under Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016 cannot be maintained does not merit. The application under Section 7 filed by the financial Creditor before the Adjudicating Authority is very well maintained. Accordingly, the point is answered against the Appellant. 10. Now we deal with Point no. (ii): Form-1 dated 09.03.2021 filed by the Respondents/financial Creditor at part -IV regarding particulars of financial debt shown as Rs. 5,20,00,000/- and the Appellant has in para 6 of the counter filed before the Adjudicating Authority admitted that the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
