AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n C.P.(IB) No.286/BB/2019 and to permit the petitioner to file its statement of objections before NCLT. 2. Heard Shri Vivek Holla, learned advocate for petitioner and Shri M.Jagadeesh, learned advocate for respondent. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioner-Company availed loan of Rs. 36.93 crores from Bank of Maharashtra (for short 'the Bank') as per sanction dated 23.10.2009. The loan was restructured in the year 2012. It is pleaded that petitioner utilized the entire credit facility towards its infrastructure development and various other works. Due to unpredicted challenges, there was delay in getting receivables, due to the petitioner. Hence, there was delay in paying interest to the bank. The bank issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e') to commence insolvency resolution process against the petitioner. Petitioner sought time on various dates to explore possibility of settling the issue and to file statement of objections. After granting several adjournments, the NCLT has passed the impugned order on 17.12.2019 appointing Shri Ravindranath N, as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to conduct the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court. 8. This Court has granted an interim order on 12.06.2020. On the subsequent dates, i.e., on 16.06.2020, 18.06.2020, 19.06.2020, 25.06.2020, 02.07.2020, 09.07.2020, 16.07.2020, 20.07.2020 and 22.07.2020 time was sought to explore possibility of settlement but the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons and perused the records. 13. Undisputed facts of the case are, respondent has presented its application under Section 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on 20.08.2019. Perusal of NCLT's order shows that the application was adjourned 13 times at the instance of petitioner on the ground of exploring possibility of settlement. The relevant paragraph of NCLT's order reads as follows: "4. The case is listed for admission on various dates viz., 03.09.2019, 13.09.2019, 26.09.2019, 17.10.2019, 08.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 25.11.2019, 27.11.2019, 05.12.2019, 06.12.2019, 10.12.2019, 16.12.2019 and 17.12.2019, and it was adjourned on those dates, the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent to explore the possibility of settling the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 407), relied upon by Shri Jagadeesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the insolvency professional is appointed, the erstwhile Directors who are no longer in Management could not have maintained the appeal before the Supreme Court of India by holding thus: "11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, we find substance in the plea taken by Shri Salve that the present appeal at the behest of the erstwhile Directors of the appellant is not maintainable. Dr. Singhvi stated that this is a technical point and he could move an application to amend the cause title stating that the erstwhile Directors do not represent the Company, but are filing the appeal as persons aggrieved by the impugned order as their m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... than an order passed Tribunals or Courts because promises or undertakings are given voluntarily whereas orders are imposed with authority. Courts believe the party making promise and grant relief. Breach of undertaking is a serious matter. In order to test the bonafides and to give further opportunity, this Court repeatedly called upon the petitioner to deposit a portion of admitted debt in this Court and granted time by adjourning the matter on several dates. Petitioner who is liable to repay more than Rs. 100 crores of public money, has remained steadfast 'not to pay' any money. 19. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, the petition is not maintainable as it has been filed by the....