AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016 ('I&B' Code, for short) read with Rule 4 of the 'I&B' Code Rules, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority praying to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' in respect of Respondent/'Corporate Debtor'. 2. The 'Appellant'/'Financial Creditor' as an 'Aggrieved' person has focused the instant Company Appeal before this Tribunal being dissatisfied the Impugned Order of dismissal of the Application Under Section 7 of the 'I&B' Code dated 17th September, 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the mother of the 'Appellant'/'Financial Creditor' booked one Villa on 21st April, 2014, in the plot area of 2000 Sq.Yd. and having a built up area of 8245 Sq. Ft. In this connec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Process' against the 'Respondent'/'Corporate Debtor'. 7. The Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant' comes out with a plea that the 'Respondent'/'Corporate Debtor' before the Adjudicating Authority filed a detailed Reply on 25th January, 2019 (to the Section 7 Application filed by the 'Appellant') repudiating the claim. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contends that the Impugned Order of the Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal') 'Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 17th September, 2019 is a perverse one, besides the same being passed in a mechanical manner. 9. Yet another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal'), 'Princip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r' stating that the construction of the Villa through letter dated 28th November, 2016 which indicates that the allotment of Villa was never cancelled and the counter-averments made by the Respondent/'Corporate Debtor' are false. 13. The Pivotal contention advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to take into account that if a 'Corporate Debtor' commits a default of a 'Financial Debt' then, the Adjudicating Authority is to see that the records of the 'Information Utility' or other evidence produced by the 'Financial Creditor' to satisfy that the 'Default' had occurred. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to consider that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kaur Sawhney (since Deceased) which has not submitted any will of Ms. Paramjeet Kaur Sawhney (since Deceased) or any (Registered Relinquishment Deed from his sister) in his favour to the Company. In fact, the father of the Appellant/Petitioner, as well as the Director of the Respondent/Company put pressure to transfer the said booking of Villa in the name of the Appellant. 19. The Respondent/Corporate Debtor in its Reply before the Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal') Principal Bench, New Delhi had averred that all the Shareholders and Directors of the Respondent/Company or one family members is known as 'Sawhney family' and are close relative to one another. 20. The Appellant/'Financial Creditor' is the son of on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no assurance was given from the delivery of the Villa in favour of either Ms. Paramjeet Kaur Sawhney (since Deceased) or to and in favour of Appellant/Petitioner by the Respondent/Company, because of the simple reason that no allotment was ever made by the Respondent Company. As such, the Appellant/Petitioner is not a 'Financial Creditor'. 24. The Pith and substance of the stand of the Respondent/'Corporate Debtor' is that, in reality there is no debt much less sum of Rs. seven crores as claimed by the Appellant. That apart, the partnership firm (run by the Appellant's father) from the 'Financial Year' 2007 was crediting advance to 'Sawhney Builders Pvt. Ltd.' and the said advances were regularly made between the two as per Ledger Accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact. 28. In the case on hand, not even an Agreement or allotment letter was produced on the side of the Appellant because of the obvious reason that the Project was cancelled as early as in the year 2011. 29. The Appellant had not come out clean in his Application Under Section 7 of the 'I&B' Code because he had not mentioned about the fact that his father is Director and Shareholder of the Respondent Company. 30. As far as the present case is concerned, there exist serious dispute as to whether the Respondent/'Corporate Debtor' owes any sum to the Petitioner/'Financial Creditor' and the said dispute cannot be determined in a summary proceedings under the 'Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code' in the considered information of this Court. ....