9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess of M/s Sunil Hitech Engineers Limited ("Corporate Debtor") seeking directions of Sh. Avil Menezes, the Liquidator of Corporate Debtor ("Respondent") to allow to realize corporate debtor's Assets specifically charged to the Applicant (described in Exhibit K to the Application) under the provisions of Section 52 of the Code read with the Liquidation Process Regulations 2016; 2. The Applicant states that the movable assets of the Corporate Debtor were originally financed by Tata Capital Financial Services. The assets which were financed by Tata Capital Financial Services were mortgaged/Charged by the Corporate Debtor in Favour of Tata Capital Financial Services. The said loan availed by the Corporate Debtor was repaid by the Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate debtor had availed various financial assistance from Banks and Financial Institutions. Owing to the defaults committed by the Corporate Debtor, a petition was filed by American Express Bank Corporation herein which came to be admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench against the Corporate Debtor and vide an order 10 September, 2018 a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") was initiated against the Corporate Debtor. 2.5. Since there was no viable resolution plan before the COC, the Resolution professional filed a Miscellaneous Application 2161 of 2019 under section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Further. after hearing the said Miscellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dressed an email to the Applicant inter alia stating that as per the documents provided by the Applicant, Loan agreements doesn't specify the Asset serial no /chassis number/machine number etc. Hence, the Respondent is not able to map the said assets loan wise and the charge registered with ROC. 2.10. The Respondent on 31 December, 2019 addressed an email to the Applicant inter alia stating that on perusal of documents provided by the Applicant, the Respondent understands that the assets mentioned by the Applicant were originally financed by Tata Capital Financial Services Limited and on satisfaction of same the charge got crystallized in favour of UCO Consortium. Further on satisfaction of the said loan, Tata Capital Financial Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely charged with the Applicant are in the custody of the Applicant. 2.12. The Applicant further states that during CIRP assets charged to the Applicant were identified at various sites. The Applicant further states that no evidence has been filed by any other lenders or no evidence have been provided to the Applicant by the Respondent regarding the Charge of other lender over the same assets. The Applicant therefore states that the question of obtaining NOC from UCO Bank Consortium does not arise. 3. The Respondent has filed the reply stating that charge has crystallized in favour of the UCO Bank Consortium on the premise that other banks have automatic charge on the assets specifically charged to the Applicant. The Respondent has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises and godowns or where else the same may be or be held by any party to the order or disposition of the Borrower or in the course of transit or on high seas or on order or deliver, excluding assets financed by availing Term Loan outside the consortium and other bankers having exclusive charge on the fixed assets of the Borrower in addition to the Property which is mentioned in the Mortgage Deed to cover entire Facilities. 2) ........; 3) .........; 4) First Charge by way of Collateral Security in the entire fixed assets excluding assets financed by availing Term Loan outside the consortium and other bankers having .......... 4.2. We also find that the third schedule in each of Hypothecation Deed contains the details of securities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Corporate Debtor. We are of considered view that the existence of charge in favor of Applicant was in public domain, being validly registered with RoC. Accordingly, the applicant remains the first charge holder over these assets, and it can not be said that after satisfaction of earlier charge, the second charge gets converted into first charge and it shall supersede any subsequent first charge.
4.5. Accordingly, we are of considered view that the Applicant holds valid 1st charge over the assets stated in Schedule K of the application and is entitled to enforce security interest thereon in terms of section 52 of the Code. The Respondent is directed accordingly.
5. In view of the foregoing, the IA 699/2021 is disposed of as allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
