TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w of admission of an Application under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, (in short IBC) which was filled by the Respondent No. 2 Punjab National Bank (Financial Creditor) against Gupta Marriage Hall Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Application of the Financial Creditor was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi Court No. III) in IB-979/ND/2019 on 3rd September, 2019. Thus, the present Appeal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Appeal. He is submitting that it is the case of the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor was not duly served with the Notice of Application under section 7. The other ground raised is that, the Bank had already resorted to various proceedings under the Securit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the Companies Act till the stage the secured assets are sold by the secured creditors in accordance with the provisions in the SARFAESI Act and the Rules." Reference is then made to Paragraph 31:- "31. The aforesaid view commends itself to us also because of the clear intention of Parliament expressed in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act that a secured creditor has the right to enforce its security interest without the intervention of the court in tribunal. At the same time, this Act takes care that in case of grievance, the borrower, which in the case of a company under liquidation would mean the liquidator, will have the right of seeking redressal under section 17 and 18 of the SARFAESI Act." 3. The learned Counsel for Appellant su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent Bank is relying on Judgement of this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of "Aditya Kumar Jajodia Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd.and Ors.", Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 292, 293 and 324 of 2017 dated 26th April, 2018, reported in MANU/NL/0079/2018, to submit that even if proceedings under SARFAESI had been moved or original Application was filed to DRT, that does not bar the Bank from resorting to Application under section 7 of IBC. It is stated that in the present matter, the account became NPA on 28th October, 2016 and the Application under section 7 of IBC, was filed on 23rd March, 2019. It is stated that when the account had become NPA the bank was bound to take action within time. 7. When the learned Counsel for the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts, there is no appearance on part of Corporate Debtor deliberately and we are constrained to proceed with the matter in the absence of Corporate Debtor." The Adjudicating Authority held that service has been done and considering the documents pointed out to us, we also do not find any reason to doubt that service was done. The learned Counsel for the Appellant no doubt is insisting that the Directors also should have been separately served, but even if for a moment it is to be said that service was not correctly done, no case is pointed out to us justifying remand. 8. Judgment in the matter of "Pegasus Assets"(supra) was in the context of provisions of SARFAESI in relation to earlier Companies Act. Last part of Para 30 of the Judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... resorting to IBC. 9. The defence raised by the Appellant to the Section 7 application is answered in Para 3 and 4of Judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of "Aditya Kumar" (supra) where it is observed as under:- "3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the 'Financial Creditor' has already taken steps under Section 19 of the 'Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1933' (DRT Act. Further, according to him, action has been taken under section 13 (4) of the 'Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002' (the SARFAESI Act). Therefore, according to the Appellant, proceedings under the aforesaid provisions....