Tribunal Upholds Creditor's Claim, Initiates Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor defaulted on loan repayments to the Financial Creditor, leading to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Despite challenges regarding the limitation period, validity of the power of attorney, and application conformity, the Tribunal deemed the application maintainable. Consequently, CIRP was initiated, an Interim Resolution Professional appointed, and a moratorium declared under Section 14 of the IBC, with instructions for the Professional to proceed with necessary actions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Default in repayment of loan facilities.
2. Period of limitation for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
3. Validity of the power of attorney used for filing the application.
4. Incomplete and non-conforming application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in repayment of loan facilities:
The Financial Creditor, Federal Bank, sought the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Sargam Builders Pvt. Ltd., due to a default in repayment of loan facilities amounting to Rs. 27,50,000 and a bank guarantee of Rs. 92,50,000 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Financial Creditor provided various facilities to the Corporate Debtor, including term loans and bank guarantees, which were secured by an equitable mortgage. The Corporate Debtor admitted to taking credit facilities and securing them with an equitable mortgage of immovable property. The default in payment of debt was acknowledged, and the debt was considered due and payable.

2. Period of limitation for initiating CIRP:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the application was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, as the default occurred on 3.12.2012, and the application was filed on 30.07.2018. However, the Tribunal referred to the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a twelve-year limitation period for enforcing payment of money secured by a mortgage. Since the debt was secured by an equitable mortgage and the application was filed within twelve years, it was not barred by limitation. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the case from the precedent cited by the Corporate Debtor, B. K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta & Associates, and held that the debt was not time-barred.

3. Validity of the power of attorney used for filing the application:
The Corporate Debtor argued that the application was based on a power of attorney executed in 2007, which was not valid for proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Tribunal did not find this argument persuasive, as the primary focus was on the existence of a default and the debt being due and payable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Financial Creditor had followed all the necessary procedures under Section 7 of the IBC to trigger the CIRP.

4. Incomplete and non-conforming application under the IBC:
The Corporate Debtor claimed that the application was incomplete and not in conformity with Rule 4 and Regulation 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Tribunal, however, found that the Financial Creditor had provided sufficient evidence of the debt and default. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observation in M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank & Anr., which clarified that the moment a default of Rs. 1 lakh or more occurs, the insolvency resolution process begins. The Tribunal was satisfied with the evidence provided by the Financial Creditor and admitted the application.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, concluded that the Corporate Debtor had defaulted in making payments towards the liability to the Financial Creditor. The application under Section 7 of the IBC was found to be maintainable, and the CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and a moratorium was declared as per Section 14 of the IBC. The Tribunal directed the Interim Resolution Professional to make a public announcement and perform all functions as per the IBC, ensuring cooperation from the Corporate Debtor's management.

---