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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>NCLT Mumbai had jurisdiction over Section 7 application despite English law. Debt admitted, CIRP upheld amid Covid-19 stress.</h1> <h3>Rajesh Kumar Modi Shareholder of M/s La Trendz Fabrica Private Limited Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Limited, M/s La Trendz Fabrica Private Limited</h3> Rajesh Kumar Modi Shareholder of M/s La Trendz Fabrica Private Limited Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Limited, M/s La Trendz Fabrica Private ... Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of NCLT, Mumbai to adjudicate the Section 7 application.2. Validity of the recall notice and the timeline for filing the Section 7 application.3. Admission of debt and default by the corporate debtor.4. Appropriateness of initiating CIRP against a solvent company affected by Covid-19.Summary:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of NCLT, MumbaiThe Loan Facility Agreements stipulated that the agreements would be governed by English law and that the courts of England would have jurisdiction. However, Clause 35.1(c) allowed the lender to take proceedings in any other courts with jurisdiction. Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the IBC provides that the NCLT, Mumbai has territorial jurisdiction over the corporate debtor's registered office located in Mumbai. Therefore, Punjab National Bank (International) Limited is fully entitled to take action under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT, Mumbai.Issue 2: Validity of the Recall Notice and TimelineThe financial creditor sent a recall notice on 04.05.2021 demanding repayment of the outstanding loan amount. The Section 7 application was filed on 02.02.2022, within one year of the demand notice. The corporate debtor did not deny the receipt of the demand notice but claimed inability to repay due to financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.Issue 3: Admission of Debt and DefaultThe corporate debtor admitted its liability regarding the loan amounts due and payable and did not dispute the debt or default in repayment. The impugned order noted that the corporate debtor acknowledged its inability to repay due to the pandemic but intended to repay once the business situation improved.Issue 4: Appropriateness of Initiating CIRPThe corporate debtor argued that it was not insolvent but faced temporary financial stress due to the pandemic and sought more time for repayment. It also mentioned a loan restructuring plan extending repayment till 30.06.2028. However, the financial creditor argued that the corporate debtor defaulted even under the restructured plan and admitted to the debt and default.Conclusion:The NCLT, Mumbai has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Section 7 application. The recall notice and subsequent filing of the Section 7 application were within the limitation period. The corporate debtor admitted the debt and default. The appeal was dismissed, and the initiation of CIRP was upheld. No order as to costs was made.