9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code'') passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (Adjudicating Authority) in C.P.(IB) No. 01/07/JPR/2023., where the Adjudicating Authority has admitted an application under Section 7 of the Code filed by the Respondent No. 1 i.e., M/s Tiffany Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2. Sancheti Buildtech Private Limited who is the Corporate Debtor) is the Respondent No. 2 herein and Mr. Prateek Sancheti, one of borrower, is the Respondent No. 3 herein. 3. It is noted that the Corporate Debtor along with Mrs. Asha Devi Sancheti, Mr. Prateek Sancheti, Mr. Roshan Lal Sancheti, M/s Sancheti Traders and Sancheti Buildtech Private Limited (jointly termed as borrowers hereinafter ) had approached the Respondent No. 1 (Financial Creditor) for availing financial facilities of availing Rs. 5.85 Crores. Three loan agreements were signed i.e., of Rs. 1.5 Crores vide Loan Agreement bearing No. TL/MTG-483 dated 19.04.2021 referred to as Loan Agreement No. 1, another loan of Rs. 1.5 Crores vide Loan Agreement bearing No. TL/MTG-481 dated 19.04.2021 referred to as Loan Agreement No. 2 and lastly loan of Rs. 2.85 Crores vide Loan Agreement bearing No. TL/MTG-479 dated 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarantors" has been strategically struck off from the bottom of the pages of loan agreement. 9. The Appellants submitted that based on the instructions of the Mr. Virendra Ranka of Respondent No. 1, on 16.04.2021 Rs. 60 Lakhs were transferred to Mr. Rounak Ranka by Mr. Roshan Lal Sancheti. Similarly, on 19.04.2021 Rs. 50 Lakhs was transferred by other Appellants i.e., Mrs. Asha Devi Sancheti to Mr. Rounak Ranka again at the instructions of Mr. Virendra Ranka of Respondent No. 1 and finally another amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs was transferred from Mr. Prateek Sancheti i.e., another alleged co-borrower into account of Mr. Rounak Ranka son of Mr. Virendra Ranka of Respondent No. 1. The Appellants stated that by this way Rs. 1.60 Crores was illegally got transferred by them into accounts of Mr. Rounak Ranka son of Mr. Virendra Ranka of Respondent No. 1., 10. The Appellants conceded that at the instance of Respondent No.1 they made part payment of Rs. 10 Lakhs on 07.08.2021. The Appellants also brought out that one statement agreement dated 09.09.2021 was executed between Mr. Rounak Ranka, Mr. Virendra Ranka and the Appellants herein wherein the Corporate Debtor and M/s Sancheti Traders wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to understand the true relationship between the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 and also failed to notice that there is no role whatsoever of the Corporate Debtor in the whole series of transaction. 16. Concluding their arguments, the Appellants stated that since no money was disbursed by the Respondent No.1 to the Corporate Debtor, there cannot be any financial debt between Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor and subsequently no default. The Appellants requested this Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the Impugned Order and allow their appeal. 17. Per contra, the Respondent No.2, who is the main contesting Respondent herein, denied all averments made by the Appellants as misleading and baseless. 18. The Respondent No. 1 gave details of the various loan agreements executed legally between the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1, wherein the Appellants have also signed as borrowers of the loan agreements. The Respondent No. 1 stated that in the year 2021, M/s. Sancheti Builders Pvt Ltd. ("Corporate Debtor") along with Mrs. Asha Devi Sancheti, Mr. Prateek Sancheti, Mr. Roshan Lal Sancheti and M/s Sancheti Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of arguments, the allegations of the Appellants are considered at its face value, and Rs.1,60,00,000/- is excluded from the computation, the Borrowers still owed a debt of Rs.4,25,00,000/-. The Respondent No. 1 stated that the disbursal of such amount is also not disputed by the Appellants and the only contention raised by the Appellants is that the disbursal was made to other Borrowers other than the Corporate Debtor, which is also misleading inasmuch as the Borrowers themselves authorized such transfer into the individual accounts as can be seen from the Schedule of each loan agreements. The Respondent No. 1 stated that that the Creditors have right to proceed against the co-borrowers in case of default. 21. The Respondent no. 1 also denied the allegations of the Appellants that Respondent No. 1 pressurized them to avail loans and referred to loan agreements where it is clearly mentioned that it is borrowers who approached the lenders for loan agreements. 22. The Respondent No.1 submitted that Clause 3 of the Demand notices dated 10.11.2022, clearly addressed the Appellants and others including the Corporate Debtor as "Borrowers", however, no objection was raised. Moreover, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unnel the money. The Respondent No.1 clarified that the transactions as alleged were neither made towards the repayment of the loan facilities nor the payment were received by the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the alleged amount has been transferred is in the name of "SCRIBBLING SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED" and the Respondent No. 1 does not have any nexus with the alleged account No. 0061002101613993. 27. The Respondent No.1 denied that Mr. Virender Prakash Ranka i.e. director of Respondent No. 1 himself transferred an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the account of Mr. Roshan Lal Sancheti to enable him to pay the said amount to the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in question was a loan in personal capacity by Virendra Prakash Ranka to Roshan Lal Sancheti for repayment of which cheque No. 011619 dated 28.09.2021 payable out of Account No. 908001200000406, Mahesh Bank Branch Bhilwara. The said cheque was submitted by Mr. Virender Prakash Ranka for payment through his bank account but the same was dishonoured with the endorsement "Funds insufficient". On failure to repay the cheque amount on statutory demand notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave also noted that various properties were mortgaged in favour of the Financial Creditors. 31. The case developed by the Appellants is that they were guarantors and not borrowers and further the Corporate Debtor did not receive the money. 32. In this connection, we take into account relevant portion of three loan agreement along with schedule which reads as under : - 33. We note that in Para 1 and 2 read with Schedule 1 of the Loan Agreement specifically states that the Borrowers have approached the Lender and not vice versa as pleaded by the Appellants. Relevant portion of the said loan agreement reads as under: "1. The Borrower had approached the lender for a loan amount as stated in Schedule 1 (the loan amount hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the loan' or "loan" or "Loan Amount") on the terms, conditions and the purpose as stated / Contained in this agreement and/or in the borrower's application for the loan. The borrower hereby confirms that the funds are for business purpose. 2. The lender hereby grants to the borrower and the borrower agrees to avail from the Lender, a financial assistance of the Loan amount on the terms and conditions contained in this agreement. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
