2019 (9) TMI 1437 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Financial creditor's petition upheld, Corporate Debtor's challenge rejected under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Tribunal found the petition filed by a single financial creditor maintainable under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, rejecting ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Financial Creditor or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The contention of the Corporate Debtor regarding filing of the present petition by the single Financial Creditor, though the Financial Facilities were made available by the three Banks is an untenable ground for rejection of the instant Petition, as Section 7 of IBC, 2016 provides for independent right to every Financial Creditor either by itself or jointly to file an Application for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. Thus the said contention of Corporate Debtor is not maintainable. With regard to the contention of the Corporate Debtor regarding claim of the entire amount of Consortium by the present Financial Creditor, it has been clarified by the petitioner/Financial Creditor that the claim made in the instant petition is only with respect to the financial debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner bank and not to other members of the consortium as reflected in page no.1033 (Volume - IV) of the petition - In the instant Petition, the Petitioner has proved its case by placing documentary evidence viz., Copies of Facility Agreements and sanction letters, date and details of all disbursements of the facilities etc., and copies of entries in Bankers Book in accordance with the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 which proves that a default has occurred for which the present Corporate Debtor was liable to pay. In the present case, this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied with the submissions put forth by the Petitioner/Financial Creditor. Further, the Financial Creditor has fulfilled all the requirements as contemplated under IB Code in the present Company Petition and has also proposed the name of IRP after obtaining his written consent in Form-2 - this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to admit the petition. The instant petition is hereby admitted and this Adjudicating Authority Orders the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process which shall ordinarily get completed as per the time line stipulated in section 12 of the IB Code, 2016 - Application admitted - moratorium declared. Issues Involved:1. Whether the petition filed by a single financial creditor from a consortium is maintainable.2. Whether the classification of the Corporate Debtor's account as NPA is valid.3. Whether the Corporate Debtor defaulted on the restructured loan agreements.4. Whether the quantum of the claimed amount should be decided by the Adjudicating Authority or the Resolution Professional.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Petition by Single Financial Creditor:The Corporate Debtor contended that the financial facilities were provided by a consortium of three banks, and thus, the petition filed by a single financial creditor (State Bank of India) is not sustainable. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) provides an independent right to every financial creditor to file an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, either individually or jointly. Therefore, the contention of the Corporate Debtor was deemed untenable and the petition was considered maintainable.2. Validity of NPA Classification:The Corporate Debtor argued that the classification of its account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the petitioner bank was illegal and arbitrary, as the renewal of working capital facilities was done on 02.01.2016. The Tribunal noted that the account was declared NPA on 28.02.2017, effective from 30.03.2013, in accordance with RBI guidelines, due to the failure of the approved restructuring proposal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Corporate Debtor's argument and upheld the classification of the account as NPA.3. Default on Restructured Loan Agreements:The petitioner (State Bank of India) provided evidence that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repayment of the restructured loan amounts and failed to meet the terms and conditions of the Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA). The Corporate Debtor did not deny the default but attributed the failure to the negligence of the consortium banks. The Tribunal, however, found that the petitioner had adequately proved the default through documentary evidence, including facility agreements, sanction letters, and entries in the Bankers Book.4. Quantum of Claimed Amount:The Corporate Debtor questioned the claim of the entire amount by the petitioner, arguing that the petition should not include amounts owed to other consortium banks. The Tribunal clarified that the claim in the petition was only with respect to the financial debt owed to the petitioner bank. Citing the judgment in Bell Finvest (India) Limited vs. Luthra Water Systems Private Limited, the Tribunal stated that it is not required to decide the quantum of the amount in default, which is the responsibility of the Resolution Professional.Conclusion:The Tribunal, satisfied with the submissions and evidence provided by the petitioner, admitted the petition and ordered the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Mr. Ram Ratan Kanoongo was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and a moratorium was declared, prohibiting suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor and actions to recover or enforce security interests. The IRP was directed to take charge of the Corporate Debtor's management and cause public announcements as prescribed under the IBC.