TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total default of Rs.57,38,92,106/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Crore Thirty Eight Lakh Ninety Two Thousand, One Hundred and Six only) as on 31.03.2018. The amount claimed is as provided below: Sl No. Particulars As on 31.03.2018 (in Rs.) 1. Principal Amount 22,66,21,494/- 2. Interest Amount 30,49,38,562/- 3. LD Amount 3,98,72,341/- 4. IC Amount 24,59,609/- TOTAL 57,38,92,106/- 3. The Petitioner originally sanctioned a term loan of Rs.24,50,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Crores Fifty Lakh only) in favour of the Respondent vide sanction letter dated 16.03.2007 for setting up 15 MW (increased to 18MW) Bagasse Co-generation plant in 2500 TCD new sugar mill near village Kerkalmatti, Badami Taluk, Bagalkot, Karnataka. The Respondent accepted the terms and conditions of the Sanction Letter vide Board Resolution dated 20.03.2007. Copies of the Sanction Letter dated 16.03.2007 and Board Resolution dated 20.03.2007 is annexed to the Petition. 4. The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into various deeds under the sanction letter. The documents related to the loan facility availed by the Respondent are annexed to the Petition and are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 24.03.2014 as the Respondent's dues were secured by two collateral securities. Copy of the notice dated 24.03.2014 is annexed to the Petition. 11. The Petitioner submits that notice dated 29.12.2014 was issued to the Respondent under section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 invoking the guarantees, seeking repayment of the loan amounts due, however, the Respondent has not replied to the said Notice. The Petitioner further issued a Possession Notice dated 13.03.2015 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and took symbolic possession of another property, exclusively charged in favour of the Petitioner and owned by Ms Rekha Devi Vikramsinh Aparadh. Copy of the Notice dated 29.12.2014 and Notice dated 13.03.2015 is annexed to the Petition. 12. The Petitioner submits that Recovery Application bearing O.A No.48/2015 has been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.36,66,43,614/- (Rupees Thirty Six Crores Sixty Six Lakhs Forty-Three Thousand Six Hundred and Fourteen only) before the Ld. DRT, New Delhi on 08.01.2015. Copy of the Recovery Applications annexed to the Petition. 13. The Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enced from 30.09.2010 and it closes on 30.06.2020. Therefore, at no stretch of the imagination, the claim is barred by limitation. The amortization schedule is annexed to the Petition. 18. The Petitioner submits that the petition is not barred by limitation and relied on the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, in C.P No. IB-939(PB)/2018, Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sikka Papers Ltd and Ors. Wherein it was observed at para 9 as below: "When the case was heard on merit the only objection raised to the admission of the petition was that the debt is time-barred as the account of the corporate debtor was declared as NPA in the year 2009 and the present petition was filed in the year 2018. The argument raised would not sustain. The reason is that charge was registered on 06.09.2009. According to Article 62 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963, the period to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property is 12 (Twelve years). Even otherwise the petitioner - financial creditor has a decree in its favour by the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 09.05.2014 and the same is covered by Art....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Accounts and Balance Sheets of the Respondent for the period 2014-15 establishing the debt and default. 24. As the debt and default are established, the question that arises at this point is whether the Petition is filed within the period of limitation. 25. The Respondent's contention that the petition is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation is unsustainable as rightly pointed out by the Petitioner and on account of proceedings bearing O.A No.48 of 2015 before the Ld. DRT, New Delhi already being initiated on 08.01.2015. The Petitioner has proposed the name of Mr Bhuvnesh Maheshwari, a registered insolvency resolution professional having Registration Number [IBBI/IPA-001/IP-POO493/2017-18/10881] as Interim Resolution Professional, to carry out the functions as mentioned under I&B Code, and given his declaration; no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. 26. The Application under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 is complete. The existing financial debt of more than rupees one lakh against the corporate debtor and its default is also proved. Accordingly, the petition filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiat....