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 Creditor's Petition Against Corporate Debtor for Insolvency</h1> <h3>M/s. IDBI Bank Limited Versus Jeypore Sugar Company Limited</h3> M/s. IDBI Bank Limited Versus Jeypore Sugar Company Limited - TMI Issues:1. Default in repayment by the Corporate Debtor leading to a Company Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.2. Defence raised by the Corporate Debtor on the ground of limitation and debt claim being barred.3. Arguments regarding acknowledgement of debt and limitation under Section 18 of The Limitation Act.4. Dispute over the Corporate Debtor's attempt for a one-time settlement proposal.5. Decision on the admission of the petition and declaration of moratorium.Analysis:1. The Company Petition was filed by the Creditor Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code due to the Corporate Debtor's default in repaying an amount of Rs. 183,75,51,582 as on 01.10.2018 against various credit facilities availed. The Creditor Bank provided evidence of debt and default occurrences through dates and events, leading to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.2. The Corporate Debtor raised a defence on the ground of limitation, arguing that the petition was filed after the completion of three years from the date of default. The Creditor Bank countered this by citing the Recall Notice sent on 13.11.2015, within the three-year period, and other instances of debt acknowledgment, as per Section 18 of The Limitation Act.3. The arguments revolved around the acknowledgment of debt and limitation under Section 18 of The Limitation Act. The Creditor Bank relied on legal precedents to support the acknowledgment of debt through various means, while the Corporate Debtor failed to provide evidence that the debt was not reflected in its books.4. A dispute arose regarding the Corporate Debtor's attempt for a one-time settlement proposal, with the Creditor Bank highlighting the lack of response and effort from the Corporate Debtor to provide necessary details for the proposal. The Corporate Debtor's defense based on these letters was deemed insufficient due to the lack of material proof of pursuing the one-time settlement.5. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, found the liability to be subsisting against the Corporate Debtor and declared the petition fit for admission. A moratorium was declared with specific directions, including the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The decision was made based on the material furnished by the Financial Creditor and the lack of merit in the Corporate Debtor's arguments, ultimately leading to the admission of the petition and initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
TaxTMI 