TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Admits Financial Creditor's Petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process</h1> <h3>State Bank of India Versus Impex Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd.</h3> State Bank of India Versus Impex Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Default in repayment by the Corporate Debtor.2. Authority to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).3. Validity and completeness of the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), 2016.4. Objections raised by the Corporate Debtor.5. Limitation period for the claim.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Default in repayment by the Corporate Debtor:The Financial Creditor, State Bank of India, filed an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, Impex Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd., for a default amount of Rs. 469,29,69,983.63 as of 31-12-2017. The Financial Creditor provided various documents, including statements of accounts and financial contracts, to substantiate the claim of default.2. Authority to initiate CIRP:The Corporate Debtor contested the authority of the Financial Creditor to initiate CIRP, arguing that the authorization was general rather than specific. However, the tribunal found that the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India was duly authorized to file the petition, as evidenced by the Board Resolution dated 16th June 2017 and other supporting documents. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed this objection, confirming the Financial Creditor's authority to initiate the process.3. Validity and completeness of the petition under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016:The tribunal examined whether the petition was complete as per Section 7(3) of the I&B Code, 2016. The Financial Creditor provided the required documents, including records of default, the name of the proposed interim resolution professional, and other specified information. The tribunal found that the petition met all the requirements, including the submission of a certified copy of the statement of accounts and the consent of the proposed interim resolution professional, Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal.4. Objections raised by the Corporate Debtor:The Corporate Debtor raised several objections, including the absence of specific authorization, disputed amounts, and the claim being barred by the statute of limitations. The tribunal found these objections to be vague and inconsistent with the documents provided by the Financial Creditor. The tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the liability through various documents, including acknowledgments of liability dated 2nd April 2016, 19th August 2017, 2nd May 2017, and 7th April 2017. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the objections raised by the Corporate Debtor.5. Limitation period for the claim:The Corporate Debtor argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. However, the tribunal found that the acknowledgments of liability executed by the Corporate Debtor extended the limitation period. As a result, the claim was not barred by limitation.Conclusion:The tribunal admitted the petition filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016, for initiating the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. A moratorium was declared in accordance with Section 13 and 15 of the IBC, 2016, prohibiting certain actions against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal appointed Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and directed him to convene a meeting of the Committee of Creditors and submit a progress report. The matter was listed for further proceedings on 25-4-2018.
TaxTMI 