9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for condonation of 14 days' delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that when the order was passed the authorised representative of the Appellant was not present and they came to know about the impugned order by letter dated 13.08.2024 received on 27.08.2024, hence, delay was occurred in preparation and filing of appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent opposing the condonation of delay submits that no sufficient cause has been shown in Para 3 of the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause shown by the Appellant in the application and the fact that order impugned was received by letter dated 13.08.2024 on 27.08.2024 and thereafter steps we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that claim of the Appellant amounting to Rs.5,25,93,585 was admitted, hence, there was no ground made out and recall Section 7 application. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there were only two defaults of EMI payment by the Corporate Debtor on which basis the Financial Creditor has initiated the Section 7 proceeding. It is further submitted that in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor there was sufficient revenue, hence, it is a case of fraudulent initiation of CIRP by the Financial Creditor. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 5.1 of the order has noticed following: "5.1. It was submitted that the Customs Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiation of the CIRP and recalling of the order wherein the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was initiated." 7. The submission of the Appellant that there is default of only two EMIs by the Corporate Debtor, hence, Section 7 proceeding ought not to have been initiated does not commend us. When default was committed by the Corporate Debtor, it was always open for the Financial Creditor to initiate proceeding which is remedy provided under I&B Code. 8. Insofar as submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that there was enough revenue in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate debtor ending 31.03.2018, the Balance Sheet ending 31.03.2018 has been brought on the record at page 139 of the appeal, which is as follows: "Ajit Solar Private Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,900) VI. VII. VIII. - 4,506,760 (36,995,421) 30,478,734 - (19,311,165) IX. - - X. (36,995,421) (19,311,165) XI. - - XII. - (36,995,421) - 19,311,165) XIII. (19.31) (10.08) 1&2 9. When we look into the 'Total Revenue' it is Rs.33,447,942/- it is much less than the revenue of earlier year. When we look into the 'Total Expenses' it is Rs.65,936,603/- and profit thus is shown in minus, as noted in the above Balance Sheet, which in no manner support the submission of the Appellant that initiation of CIRP was fraudulent. Further it is relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
