TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tings Ltd (hereinafter called the 'Corporate Debtor') on the ground, that the Corporate Debtor committed default in repayment of loan facilities granted to the Corporate Debtor to the extent of Rs. 6,38,78,416.75/- including interest of Rs. 2,07,95,568/-, under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter called the 'Code') read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. The Petition reveals that the following credit facilities were sanctioned on 25.02.2013 to the Corporate Debtor by SVC Bank consortium wherein the Petitioner bank is the consortium member: Sr. No. Facility By TJSB (Petitioner Bank) By SVC Bank 1 CC Limit 60,00,000/- 3,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The Petitioner on 04.08.2015 issued recall notice to the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of Multistate Co-Operative Societies Act, 2002 and further issued SARFAESI notice on 29.03.2016. 5. The Corporate Debtor in the reply to the Petition raised the following contentions; a. It is submitted that a Corporate Debtor is a medium enterprise as defined under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSMED Act'). b. The declaration of the account of the Corporate Debtor as Non Performing Asset ('NPA') w.e.f. 30.06.2015 is illegal, void and no-nest as the same is in contravention of Regulations and Circulars issued by the Government, Reserve Bank of India, etc. c. The claim of Rs. 6,38,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SARFAESI dated 29.03.2016 by the petitioner under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 shows their high handedness in exploiting its dominant position vis-à-vis the Corporate Debtor. 6. The above contentions of the Corporate Debtor cannot be taken into account while considering the Petition for admission under section 7 of the code, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors., - (2018) 1 SCC 407" wherein it was observed as below: "28. When it comes to a financial creditor triggering the process, Section 7 becomes relevant. Under the Explanation to Section 7(1), a default is in respect of a financial debt owed to any financial creditor o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due. A debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact. The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. Under sub-section (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate the order passed to the financial creditor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be." 7. The Corporate Debtor further contended that, the claim of the Petitioner is barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and to support the contention the Ld. Counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is, the contention of the Corporate Debtor that the debt is barred by limitation will not hold water. 9. This adjudicating authority having satisfied with the fact that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in making payment towards the liability to the petitioner, the petition deserves to be admitted. 10. This Adjudicating Authority, on perusal of the documents filed by the Creditor, is of the view that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repaying the loan availed and also placed the name of the Insolvency Resolution Professional to act as Interim Resolution Professional and there being no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, therefore the Application under sub-section (2) of Section 7 is taken as com....