TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was offered on 06th July, 2022 by the Corporate Debtor was not the entire amount claimed by the Financial Creditor in the Application. But on the next date i.e. 11th July, 2022, when the case was taken, Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that Corporate Debtor is now ready to deposit the entire amount within 45 days. Submission of the Appellant is that since the Appellant expressed its unwillingness to settle the matter, the course adopted by the Adjudicating Authority is impermissible. The present is a case where the Adjudicating Authority has not directed the Financial Creditor to enter into settlement with the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority has only recorded the statements of the Corporate Debtor that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed by the Financial Creditor against the Order dated 11th July, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-III) in CP(IB) 498/MB/2020. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this Appeal are: The Appellant-Financial Creditor has sanctioned Term-Loan of Rs. 10.5 Crores and Rs. 8.5 Crores to the Corporate Debtor on 29th July, 2013. On 17th March, 2017 and 25th February, 2017 respectively the Loan Account of the Corporate Debtor in respect to above noted sanctioned Term-Loan were declared Non-Performing Assets. On 04.11.2019, the Appellant preferred Section 7 Application (C.P. (IB) 498/MB/2020) in which an Amount of Rs. 15,79,41,658/- was claimed as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its unwillingness to settle the matter with the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority could not have permitted the Corporate Debtor to deposit the amount in the Bank Account of the Financial Creditor. 4. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate for the Respondent refuting the submissions of Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor on 11th July, 2022 made the statement that they are not willing to settle the matter since they have no confidence on the Corporate Debtor in view of the past conduct of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the unwillingness is only due to the reason that Corporate Debtor was not offering the entire amount and further has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the past conduct of the Corporate Debtor 7. Immediately after noticing the above statement of Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor, the statement of Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has been recorded to the following effect: After making the above statement by counsel appearing for the Financial Creditor, Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Counsel appearing for the Corporate Debtor on instructions assured the Financial Creditor as well as this Bench that his client is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 15,79,41,658/- claimed in the above Company Petition, instead of Rs. 12.75 Crores offered earlier within 45 days from today . 8. The Adjudicating Authority after noticing the aforesaid statements, passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Section 7 Proceeding was refused. Challenging the Order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court where Hon ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the ambit and scope of Section 7 of the IBC, 2016. 11. Hon ble Supreme Court in paragraph 56 of the Judgement noticed the following: 56. Both, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) proceeded on the premises that an application must necessarily be entertained under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC, if a debt existed and the Corporate Debtor was in default of payment of debt. In other words, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) found Section 7(5) (a) of the IBC to be mandatory. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) was of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62. As pointed out by Mr. Gupta, Legislature has, in its wisdom, chosen to use the expression may in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC. When an Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is satisfied that a default has occurred and the application of a Financial Creditor is complete and there are no disciplinary proceedings against proposed resolution professional, it may by order admit the application. Legislative intent is construed in accordance with the language used in the statute. 13. In the facts of the above case, the Supreme Court set aside the Order of the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the Section 7 Application. In the facts of the present case, the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
