TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 2016, seeking admission of the Petition, initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, granting moratorium and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional as prescribed under the Code and Rules thereon. 2. Brief averments germane to the Petition are:- (1) The Corporate Debtor had approached the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd (Subsequently changed to ICICI Ltd) for granting credit facilities and Bank granted, Rupee Term loans and Foreign Currency Loans under agreements dated 05.10.1990, 06.03.1991, 28.03.1991 and 30.03.1992 under various loans of Rs. 110 Lakhs, Rs. 105 Lakhs, 712,000 DM and Rs. 280 Lakhs respectively. (2) It is averred when the Corporate Debtor failed and neglected to repay the Loans the Financial Creditor issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2002 on 13.11.2014 and took physical possession of the property on 17.01.2015. ICICI Ltd filed Original Application under Section 9(1) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, before the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, II- Chennai vide O.A. No. 1297/2000 now renumbered as OA.No 427/2015 against Corporate Debtor which is p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.2000 and filed OA No.1297/2000 before Hon'ble DRT at Chennai under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB&FI Act), which granted ex-parte attachment order against all the secured assets of the Corporate Debtor even though Section 22 of the SICA prohibits such attachment. As such, all properties of the Corporate Debtor, including its factory, buildings, lands admeasuring 15.06 acres in Chittoor District, machinery and other movables were attached and that the Management of Corporate Debtor was prohibited to enter into the attached property and could not run the factory or continue business in order to repay the loans. (4) It is averred Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) vide order dated 28.03.2007 had attached 12.31 acres in lieu of non-payment of employees provident fund by the Corporate Debtor even though the properties continued to be attached in favour of Standard Chartered Bank. It is averred around 5 acres of Corporate Debtor's land was auctioned to one Mr. K. Deena Bandhu by EPFO and Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the said order challenged the same before Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad vide WP 29185 of 2011 on the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Corporate Debtor or its Directors as such it could not reply to the same. (10) It is the case of Corporate Debtor that Financial Creditor already admitted the date of default was 07.08.2000 as such the present petition is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the Petition. 4. I have heard the Counsels for Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor. Both sides have filed written submissions. The Petitioner is Financial Creditor. The Petition is filed under Section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Counsel for Financial Creditor/Petitioner would contend the Corporate Debtor availed various loans from ICICI Ltd. and later Standard Chartered Bank took over the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor on 18.02.2006 and thereafter by the Financial Creditor on 31.07.2012. In consideration of the said Credit facilities, the Corporate Debtor has executed various documents such as Rupee Term Loan and Foreign Currency Loan agreements besides hypothecation agreement. 5. The Counsel for Financial Creditor would contend that when the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments, the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 07.08.2000. 6. Another Secured Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Ltd. [CP (IB) No. 977/2018, dated 26-10-2018] and International Asset Reconstruction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. V. Samudhra Biopharma (P.) Ltd. [CP (IB) No. 359/2018, dated 3-10-2018]. 11. On the other hand, Counsel for Corporate Debtor would contend the Corporate Debtor is in the business of manufacture of textiles and 60% of its products are being exported and that due to Government's order in 1993 prohibiting the export of textile products, the Corporate Debtor suffered huge losses, resulting in getting declared as Sick Company by BIFR vide case no. 95/1995. Despite this, the management of the Corporate Debtor kept the factory running against odds till 1998, with an intention to pay back its debts to the Creditors. BIFR on 21.06.2000 passed an order recommending the Corporate Debtor to be wound up under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) which was challenged vide Appeal No. 172/2000 was also dismissed by AAIFR. 12. The Counsel for Corporate Debtor would contend, consequent to order passed by Hon'ble DRT, all the properties of Corporate Debtor (both movable and immovable properties) were attached and as such it was unable to run the factory or c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Financial Creditor. Prior to filing this Petition, proceedings were initiated against Corporate Debtor before BIFR and against the order of BIFR, Corporate Debtor preferred appeal to AAIFR. Thus, proceedings were pending against Corporate Debtor in various forums before Financial Creditor approached this Tribunal. 18. The Counsel for Financial Creditor relied on the decision of NCLT Chennai Bench. The Financial Creditor herein is also a party before NCLT Chennai Bench and wherein it was held that the time which has been spent before other forums to be excluded from the computation of limitation. So the period when proceedings pending before DRT-II Chennai needs to be excluded and accordingly Application filed before the Tribunal is within the period of limitation. DRT-II Chennai also passed order allowing the Application filed by Financial Creditor and passed a Decree in its favour. In this connection Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of NCLT Chennai Bench in the matter of M/s. Solidaire India Limited where under proceedings were also initiated against the Corporate Debtor before DRT and Tribunal admitted the petition filed by Financial Creditor. The Financial Creditor....