Petition Dismissed for Procedural Non-compliance in CIRP Initiation

The Tribunal dismissed the petition for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to non-compliance with procedural requirements for serving notice to the Corporate Debtor. The dismissal does not prejudice the Financial Creditor's rights to pursue the matter in other forums. The decision highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in insolvency proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
2. Financial Facilities and Loan Agreements
3. Default in Loan Repayment
4. Notices and Demand for Repayment
5. Procedural Compliance for Service of Notice

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
The petition was filed under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, by a Financial Creditor, Indian Bank, seeking to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The petition was supported by a Power of Attorney dated 30.6.2006.

2. Financial Facilities and Loan Agreements
The Corporate Debtor, incorporated in 2007, sought multiple credit facilities from the Financial Creditor to establish an electricity generation plant. The initial sanction letter dated 30.7.2010 approved a term loan of Rs. 200 crores and non-fund-based facilities of Rs. 100 crores. Due to non-fulfillment of pre-disbursement conditions, the validity of the sanction was extended on 1.2.2011. Subsequently, a revised sanction letter dated 6.6.2011 approved a term loan of Rs. 269 crores, a short-term loan of Rs. 200 crores, and non-fund-based facilities of Rs. 100 crores. The Corporate Debtor executed the necessary documents, including a bridge loan agreement dated 17.6.2011, and utilized the sanctioned amount for project expenses.

3. Default in Loan Repayment
The Corporate Debtor failed to repay the short-term loan within the stipulated six months and sought extensions multiple times. Despite the Financial Creditor's cooperation and extensions, the Corporate Debtor's account was classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) on 31.5.2013. The Financial Creditor issued a letter on 21.5.2013 demanding repayment of Rs. 207,51,07,223.34, which was acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor on 28.2.2014. Despite this acknowledgment, no payment was made, leading to a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and a loan recall notice dated 22.3.2016.

4. Notices and Demand for Repayment
The Financial Creditor issued multiple notices demanding repayment, including a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and a loan recall notice. The amount due, including interest, was Rs. 320,40,38,089.52 as of 31.3.2017. The Financial Creditor also initiated proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which are pending before DRT-I, New Delhi.

5. Procedural Compliance for Service of Notice
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the service of notice to the Corporate Debtor. The address mentioned in the petition did not match the registered office address as per the documents. The application was not properly served on the Corporate Debtor, which explained its absence in the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with Rule 4(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, which mandates service to the registered office of the Corporate Debtor.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the petition due to non-compliance with procedural requirements for serving notice to the Corporate Debtor. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Financial Creditor's rights to pursue the matter in other forums. The Tribunal's decision underscores the necessity of strict adherence to procedural rules in insolvency proceedings.

---