TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case is as under: - i) The Respondent No. 1 / Financial Creditor preferred an Application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Respondent No. 2 / Corporate Debtor on 30.08.2018 alleging debt of INR 23.90 CR, and defaulted upon allegedly on 30.06.2015. The same was allowed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by way of the impugned order. ii) The Respondent No. 1 is the Financial Creditor, a scheduled bank and a body constituted under the Provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. iii) The Bank of India / Financial Creditor sanctioned term loan facility of Rs. 9,00,00,000/- and a cash credit facility of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor vide a sanction letter dated 14.08.2013. iv) The Respondent No. 1 on 14.08.2013 availed Rs. 25 Crores from Bank of India for modernization of Appellant's existing Units, Working Capital Requirements and for a Solar Project. The Appellant considering the scope of immediate return on investment implemented Solar Project and installed it within a record time of Six months but unfortunately the Government of Maharashtra has not declared grid connectivity policy for Sixteen months a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant has been wrongly contended that the Application under Section 7 of the IBC was time barred. It is further submitted that it has been held by this Hon'ble Tribunal in numerous matters that the date of default is the date of NPA. Admittedly, the date of default / NPA in the present Appeal was 31.03.2015. 8. It is further submitted that the Corporate Debtor had executed two separate Deeds of Acknowledgement of Debt and Securities on 31.08.2015, confirming and acknowledging its indebtedness to the Respondent No. 1. 9. It is further submitted that the Appellant has twice offered the OTS. It shows in the letter dated 1st April 2017 (at Annexure - A/1 page 9 of the I.A.) written by Katare Spinning Mills Limited through its Authorized Signatory to the Bank of India, Main Branch, Solapur, where it is stated at page 11 of the I.A. as follows; "............we intend to settle the above matter with Lump-sum Rs. 15 Crore as a full and final settlement which is to be paid within a period of 12 months and with some upfront payment. Due to service financial crises faced by our company we need the above period to settle your dues. Since the amount to be settled is big we need to arrange....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Annexure A/5 at page 17 of the I.A. the letter dated 14.09.2020 written by Katare Spinning Mills Limited to the Bank of India, Main Branch, Solapur, caption OTS where they have stated that Settlement of our dues under BOI OTS 2020 without prejudice during pendency of this Appellate Tribunal stating interalia as follows: "............... 8. In the above background, we request you to revive / consider our OTS proposal on following lines. i) OTS amount at Rs. 1117 lakh or lesser as per your liberalized norms for MSMEs. ii) Adjustment of Rs. 123 lakh viz. 10% of OTS amount to be earmarked out of earlier deposit of Rs. 246 Lakh as our willingness for OTS. iii) Adjustment of Rs. 123 lakh viz. 10% of OTS amount to be earmarked out of our earlier deposit as upfront payment of OTS amount. iv) Restart of the hotel for operations. Hotel would continue to be in possession of BOI. Operations including entire cash flow could even be under the supervision of BOI official. v) Bank can release the amount paid over 10% of OTS amount to help us refurbish the hotel to the minimum extent necessary. Once in operation, we expect top line of around Rs. 300 lakh in a year estimating an ARR o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when hotel was taken possession of by BOI under SARFAESI. We could also explore contracting out dining and other business to generate some revenue to repay BOI dues. Promoters would also dispose of the assets in the meantime to repay the BOI dues before the lease period i.e. September,2023. 16. It was further submitted that the Appellant himself have given offer for settlement of the dispute from time to time under OTS Scheme and have also admitted their dues and have deposited 3 Cr. in two instalments. 17. It was further submitted that the conduct of the Appellant is not covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). 18. It was further submitted that the Appellant had not denied the genuinity of any of the documents which the Respondent No. 1 brought on record through I.A. FINDING 19. After hearing we have perused the records of the case, considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. Taking the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that in Section 7 of the IBC Application filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that dues amount claimed in default ha....