TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Resolution Professional as prescribed under the Code and Rules thereon. 2. The brief averments made in the petition are as follows: (a) It is averred that the Corporate Debtor availed various facilities from time-to-time from the Financial Creditor along with other consortium members. The facilities availed from the Financial Creditor is as under: Nature of Facility Amount (In Crores) Rupee Loan 750.00 Additional Rupee Loan 378.00 Bank Guarantee Limit 212.00 Total 1,340.00 (b) It is averred that the Corporate Debtor was sanctioned credit facility of Rs. 5,549 crores as Rupee Loan for the project wherein the share of the Financial Creditor was Rs. 750 crores. In order to secure the said limit, the Corporate Debtor, Financial Creditor and other consortium of members executed security documents on 01.12.2010. The said facilities were duly secured by securities and accordingly the facilities were disbursed to the Corporate Debtor. (c) It is averred that the Corporate Debtor failed to achieve the COD (Commercial Operation Date) of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeding". (b) It is averred that delay of around 3 years on account of Force Majeure event resulted in cost and time over run. The project cost increased from Rs. 6936 Crores to Rs. 10433 Crores as appraised by Financial Creditors under additional Rupee Loan Agreement dated 30th March 2015. (c) It is averred the Promoters of Corporate Debtor maintained required Debt: Equity ratio at all times as per Common Loan Agreements entered from time-to-time. (d) It is averred that even after executing the Additional Rupee Loan Agreement in December 2015, disbursements from Lenders were not without hassles and time delays affecting the scheduled Project progress. (e) It is averred that amount disbursed by Banks after Cost Over Run were mainly utilized for adjustment towards IDC and Finance Charges only, and very little disbursement was made by lenders towards actual project construction activities. (f) LVTPL's sponsors i.e., Lanco Infratech Limited (LITL) was faced with various industry and macro-economic issues such as frequent change in policies, domestic coal shortage, sudden increase in cost of imported coal, non-availability of Natural Gas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted various Financial Facilities to the Corporate Debtor from time-to-time. The Counsel contended the Corporate Debtor committed default of Rs. 786,74,02,966.00. 8. Mr. Rotash Saini, Authorized Representative of the Financial Creditor and working as Senior Manager has preferred the present application on behalf of the Financial Creditor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor in terms of provisions of the Code. 9. The Financial Creditor has relied upon the following loan documents executed between the parties in respect to the financial facility sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor: (a) Sanction Letter dated 31.03.2010 for Rupee Term Loan of Rs. 750 Crores. (b) Security Trustee Appointment Agreement Dated 01.12.2010. (c) Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.01.2011. (d) Sanction letter dated 20.03.2015. (e) Additional Rupee Loan Agreement dated 30.03.2015. (f) Notices Under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial; Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002 dated 26.04.2018 issued by Financial Creditor (g) Recall notice dated 17.07.2018 issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal never stayed the proceedings pending before it at any stage. Even otherwise, as the present [proceedings have not been initiating upon directions of RBI, there is no impact of Supreme Court judgment referred above and same bench had upheld the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and nothing stops the Financial Creditor to initiate the process under code when already when most of the lenders have jointly filed OA for recovery against Corporate Debtor pending before DRT -1 Delhi which has reached the stage of evidence." 14. During hearing the Learned Counsel for Financial Creditor has also relied upon Hon'ble NCLAT Judgment Dated 20th September, 2019 in State Bank of India v. Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd. Co. Appeal No. 671 of 2019 in the matter of State Bank of India v. Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 576 (NCLT - Kol) Vide said judgment while setting aside the impugned order passed by the NCLT, Kolkata Bench in, Hon'ble NCLAT has, inter alia, observed that "Petition under Section 7 of the I & B Code is to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority on its own merits taking in to consideration the records and in absence of any evidence to show t....