Key Findings: Limitation Period, False Statements Rejected, JLF Consent Not Required

The Tribunal found the petition to be within the limitation period, rejected the argument of false statements of accounts, emphasized that JLF consent is not necessary for proceedings, upheld the validity of loan assignments, and confirmed the existence of debt and default. Consequently, the petition was admitted, an IRP appointed, and a moratorium declared, commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the debt is time-barred and hit by limitation.
2. Whether the petition is defective due to false and incomplete statements of accounts.
3. The relevance of the Joint Lenders' Forum (JLF) in the context of the petition.
4. The validity of the assignment of Term Loan II and Term Loan III.
5. The existence of debt and default.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the debt is time-barred and hit by limitation:

The primary question regarding the maintainability of the petition is whether the debt is time-barred. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set in B.K. Educational Services (P.) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates, which clarified that the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) from its inception. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of the Limitation Act do apply to the IBC, and the limitation period for enforcing payment of money secured by a mortgage of immovable property is twelve years as per Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The date of default being 11.03.2015 and the petition filed on 29.09.2017, the Tribunal held that the petition is well within the limitation period.

2. Whether the petition is defective due to false and incomplete statements of accounts:

The Corporate Debtor argued that the statements of accounts annexed to the petition were false and not certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. The Tribunal, however, referred to the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., stating that the requirement is to attach a copy of the Bankers' Book, not necessarily a certified copy. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's submission of account statements was adequate and did not render the petition defective.

3. The relevance of the Joint Lenders' Forum (JLF) in the context of the petition:

The Corporate Debtor contended that the petitioner obstructed the formation of a JLF and did not abide by its decisions. The Tribunal, referencing Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, held that the adjudicating authority is not required to consider whether permission or consent has been obtained from the JLF for proceedings under section 7 of the IBC. The Tribunal emphasized that the lender's decision to form or join a lending forum is a prerogative that cannot be intervened by the borrower.

4. The validity of the assignment of Term Loan II and Term Loan III:

The Corporate Debtor questioned the assignment of Term Loan II to the petitioner, arguing that part payment had already been made. The Tribunal found that the assignment of Term Loan III to the petitioner by IDFC was valid and legal. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that Term Loan II had been fully repaid, noting that the outstanding debt remained unpaid.

5. The existence of debt and default:

The Tribunal concluded that the Financial Creditor had established the existence of a "Financial Debt" as defined under section 5(8) of the IBC and a "Default" as defined under section 3(12) of the IBC. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had not received the outstanding debt from the respondent and that the formalities prescribed under the Code had been completed. Consequently, the petition deserved admission.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal admitted the petition and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to conduct the Insolvency Resolution Process. The Tribunal also declared a moratorium prohibiting the institution of any suit before a court of law and the transfer or encumbrance of the debtor's assets. The IRP was directed to perform duties as assigned under sections 18 and 15 of the IBC and inform the Tribunal of the progress within 30 days. The commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was effective from the date of the order.

---