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>Court dismisses petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution due to lack of evidence. Proof of debt and limitation crucial.</h1> <h3>Saroj Kumar Poddar Versus Growth Techno Projects Limited</h3> Saroj Kumar Poddar Versus Growth Techno Projects Limited - TMI Issues:- Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.- Default on financial debt repayment by the Corporate Debtor.- Acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor.- Limitation period for filing the application.- Proof of debt and limitation requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.Analysis:1. The application was filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, a Public Limited Company engaged in Building and Construction work. The Financial Creditor had advanced a substantial amount for a residential project in 1997, which faced hindrances due to land acquisition by the Delhi Development Authority in 2004. A settlement agreement in 2014 confirmed the liability of the Corporate Debtor to pay a specified amount to the creditors.2. The Financial Creditor contended that the Corporate Debtor failed to pursue compensation proceedings due to financial constraints, leading to doubts about compliance with the settlement agreement. Despite acknowledging the debt, the Corporate Debtor expressed inability to repay, prompting the Financial Creditor to file the application. The Corporate Debtor did not dispute the debt or produce evidence of repayment despite receiving a statutory demand notice.3. Concerns regarding the limitation period for filing the application arose, with the Petitioner submitting documents supporting the loan disbursement in 1997. However, the bench noted gaps in evidence between 2002 and 2014, raising questions about continuity and adherence to limitation requirements. The absence of records of default, certified bank account entries, or court orders on debt non-payment weakened the Petitioner's case on proof of debt and limitation.4. The bench dismissed the petition due to the Petitioner's failure to establish a strong case on merit, highlighting the lack of evidence regarding default records, bank account entries, and court orders on debt non-payment. The decision emphasized the importance of meeting the proof of debt and limitation requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for a successful application under Section 7.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
