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 insolvency application against Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd, appoints Interim Resolution Professional.</h1> <h3>State Bank of India Versus M/s. Surya Pharmaceutical Limited</h3> State Bank of India Versus M/s. Surya Pharmaceutical Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Default by Corporate Debtor.3. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.4. Declaration of Moratorium.5. Duties and Obligations of the Interim Resolution Professional.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:The Financial Creditor, State Bank of India, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Surya Pharmaceutical Limited. The application was signed and submitted by Mr. V.K. Karwal, Assistant General Manager, empowered under General Regulations No. 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations 1955.2. Default by Corporate Debtor:The Corporate Debtor, M/s. Surya Pharmaceutical Limited, availed financial facilities from the Financial Creditor and other consortium banks amounting to Rs. 430.06 crores. The total amount in default as of 10.07.2018 was Rs. 1571.09 crores along with uncharged interest. The account of the Corporate Debtor was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 18.04.2012. Despite recall notices issued on 07.08.2013 and 15.02.2017, the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the unpaid debt.3. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional:The Financial Creditor proposed the name of Shri Harvinder Kumar Jatana as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). He met the requirements of Section 7(3)(b) of the Code, and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. The Tribunal appointed Mr. Jatana as the IRP.4. Declaration of Moratorium:Upon admission of the application, the Tribunal declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code. The moratorium imposed prohibitions on:- Institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.- Transferring, encumbering, or disposing of any assets of the Corporate Debtor.- Actions to foreclose, recover, or enforce any security interest.- Recovery of any property by an owner or lessor.The moratorium did not apply to transactions notified by the Central Government or a surety in a contract of guarantor to the Corporate Debtor. Essential goods and services to the Corporate Debtor were to continue during the moratorium period.5. Duties and Obligations of the Interim Resolution Professional:The IRP was directed to make a public announcement regarding the admission of the application within three days. The IRP was to perform functions as per Sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 of the Code, ensuring fairness, integrity, and independence. The personnel connected with the Corporate Debtor were legally obligated to assist the IRP. The IRP was to protect and preserve the value of the Corporate Debtor's property and manage its affairs in accordance with the Code.Conclusion:The Tribunal admitted the application for initiating CIRP against M/s. Surya Pharmaceutical Limited, appointed Mr. Harvinder Kumar Jatana as the IRP, declared a moratorium, and outlined the duties and obligations of the IRP, emphasizing the need for cooperation from the Corporate Debtor's personnel and the IRP's adherence to the Code.
TaxTMI 