2020 (12) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 277323 dated 13.10.2017 of Rs. 5,00,000/­ (Rupees five Lakhs Only) as the validity of the said demand draft has expired after not being encashed by the opponent no.1;" 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manan Paneri for the applicant, Mr. Dhruvin Dossani appearing on behalf of Mr. Vishwas Shah for the respondent No. 1 Canara Bank and Ms. Hiral Mehta appearing on behalf of Mr. Vishal Dave for respondent No. 2 Company. 3. At the outset it may be noted that the Misc. Civil Application has been filed in the Special Civil Application which was disposed of by the co­ordinate bench vide order dated 06.07.2018 which reads as under: "ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18332 OF Learned advocate Mr.Vishal J. Dave appearing for the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cs within first 12 months, Rs. 4 lacs within next 12 months and remaining amount within 12 months thereafter. It is further submitted that amount is deposited pursuant to cash credit facility approved by the Bank in favour of the petitioner and therefore, such amount is not to be repaid in equally monthly installment and on unpaid amount Bank is charging interest. Thereby, practically such amount is to be repaid based upon business of the petitioner,however, because of fire in the godown of the petitioner firm, petitioner is unable to pay requisite amount in time. In view of such disclosure, upon making payment of Rs. 5lacs within a week with filing an undertaking as per payment schedule disclosed in such financial restructuring offer, l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent No. 1 had not encashed the demand draft, the applicant had requested the respondent No. 1 Bank to return the original demand draft and refund the said amount, however the same was not replied to the applicant nor the demand draft was returned to the applicant and therefore the present application has been filed. 5. The respondent No. 1 Bank has filed the affidavit­in­reply challenging the maintainability of the Misc. Civil Application filed by the applicant third party and further stated that the respondent company, (the original petitioner) being under IBC regim is represented by Resolution Professional, who is the only competent person to move any application on behalf of the company. 6. After having heard the learne....