TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor's (Respondent) account amount of Rs. 17,95,04,271.79 (Rs. 1,87,39,588.90 presently operated by the Resolution Professional, Rs. 14,57,64,682,89 from the LC honoured before 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' (for short CIRP) and appropriated after CIRP and also GST refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- received during the CIRP period) which were meant to settle the liability on account of the LCs opened during pre-CIRP period. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant Appeal is as follows; a) That one Bhatia Coke & Energy Ltd. (BCEL) (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporate Debtor"- Respondent) incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 with the objective to manufacture coke and thereby generated power by captive utilization of all types of coal, coke, charcoal, coal tar, lignite, minerals, metals and their by-products and particularly by waste heat generated during the manufacture of the coke. b) The Corporate Debtor (Respondent herein) had been availing various credit facilities like Term loan, Cash Credit, Bank Guarantee including Letter of Credit (LC) facilities from the Manoramaganj Branch, Indore of the Appellant in consortium. In 2015, the account was restructu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t page 74 to 77 of the Appeal paper Book), the replaced RP/Respondent de hors the facts and circumstances as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 610 of 2019, insisted on the refund of aforesaid Rs. 17,95,04,271.79 by the Appellant. k) Further case is that on 28.01.2020 the RP/Respondent sent an email to the Appellant seeking refund of the aforesaid amount wrongly recovered from the Corporate Debtor. l) Further case is that the Respondent had filed an Application against the Appellant under Section 60(5) of the IBC bearing MA/136/2020 for seeking directions to reverse the amount of Rs. 17,95,04,271.79 lying with the Appellant and also to remit the balance in the account of the Corporate Debtor. m) The Ld. Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties allowed the Application filed by the RP/Respondent (herein) under order dated 29.05.2020 and hence this Appeal. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument, in memo of Appeal and his Written Submissions have submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had erroneously....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are the subject matter of the dispute as under: 12. It was further submitted that the Appellant did not disputed the following amounts appropriated. The appellant is liable for repayment with interest as under: Cash balance to the credit of the CD in Appellant bank's account Rs. 187.39 Lakhs Amount of GST credit belonging to the CD received by the appellant bank Rs. 150.00 Lakhs Total Rs. 337.39 Lakhs 13. It is further submitted that the LC amount of Rs. 14,57,64,682,89 which the appellant claims to have sought the permission of the erstwhile IRP namely Mr. Motappa Thimmaraya Swamy is not maintainable as it is against the principle of Moratorium. 14. It is further submitted that erstwhile IRP is exposed to the proceedings of the disciplinary committee in a similar case refer to IBBI/CD/24/2020 wherein the IRP was punished with a fine of Rs. 34 Lakhs. 15. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, there is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is to be dismissed. FINDING 16. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case, considered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtium of Banks) having voting share of 32.59%. The Appellant is only on the instruction with the prior approval of the IRP namely Mr. Motappa Thimmaraya Swamy, payment of LCs was made by debiting the Cash Credit Account. From the perusal of the record it appears that the IRP namely Mr. Motappa Thimmaraya Swamy was removed. The order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the NCLT, Division Bench-II, Chennai is as under; " On the confirmation coming from IBBI appointing Mr. Subrata Mohindranath Maity [Regn. No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00884/2017- 2018/11481] as Resolution Professional, the application MA/1379/2019 is hereby allowed." The erstwhile IRP is exposed to the proceedings of the disciplinary committee in a similar case refer to IBBI/CD/24/2020 wherein the IRP was punished with a fine of Rs. 34 Lakhs. We are of the further view that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant have failed to make out any ground and the finding recorded by Ld. Adjudicating Authority, so we are affirmed the finding recorded in the impugned order dated 29.05.2020 in MA/136/2020 in IBA/307/IB/2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench, Chennai. ORDER 17.....