TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was incorporated on 04.04.2007. The identification number of the Corporate Debtor is U11100DL2007PLC161686 and its registered office is situated at Punj Llyod House 17-18, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019. Its authorized share capital is Rs. 1,00,00,00,000/- and the paid upshare capital is Rs. 62,69,40,000/-. These details have been furnished on the basis of master data obtained from the official website of Registrar of Companies. 3. A 'Loan Agreement' dated June 6, 2008 was entered into by 'Punj Lloyd Upstream Limited-Corporate Debtor' (hereinafter referred to as "Principal Borrower") with the Financial Creditor for grant of USD 25,000,000 which was guaranteed by one 'Guarantor' namely Punj Lloyd Limited, the holding company of the Principal Borrower. 4. The aforesaid loan amount of USD 25,000,000 was to be disbursed in two equal tranches of USD 12,500,000. The Principal Borrower-Corporate Debtor drew the first tranche of USD 12,500,000 on 19 November 2008 and 02 April 2009. Tranche 2 was formally cancelled by the Financial Creditor on 19 March 2015 in pursuance of the request made by the Principal Borrower-Corporate Debto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out hereinbelow: June 2008 Agreement with the Corporate Debtor (i) The Applicant through a loan agreement dated 06 June 2008 executed with the Corporate Debtor ("June 2008 Agreement") had extended facilities amounting to a total of USD 25,000,000 to the Corporate Debtor. The said amount of USD 25,000,000 was to be disbursed in two equal tranches of USD 12,500,000 ("Tranche I and "Tranche 2"). (ii) Under Section 2.06 of the June 2008 Agreement, the Corporate Debtor was required to repay each tranche of the loan in twelve (12) semi-annual instalments. Section 6.01 of the June 2008 Agreement also provided for acceleration of payment by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant upon the occurrence of an 'Event of Default' which, as per Section 6.02 included, inter alia, a continued failure for 5 days to pay any amounts due including any part of the principal or interest on the loan. (iii) The Corporate Debtor drew the first tranche of the total loan amount which amounted to USD 12,500,000 on 19 November 2008 and 02 April 2009. (iv) Tranche 2 was formally cancelled by the Applicant on 19 March 2015 upon the Corporate Debtor's request. A copy of the Jun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....une 2008 Agreement by way of a Guarantee Agreement dated 06 June 2008 ("Guarantee Agreement"), whereby the Corporate Debtor irrevocably, absolutely and unconditionally agreed inter alia to pay the Applicant upon any failure of Punj Lloyd Upstream to pay any amount due under the June 2008 Agreement, and to indemnify the Applicant against any loss incurred by the Applicant under the June 2008 Agreement. (iii) Punj Lloyd Upstream drew down the first tranche of the loan under the June 2008 Agreement on 19 November 2008 and 02 April 2009 in the amount of USD 12,500,000. The second tranche of the loan was not disbursed and was cancelled on 19 March 2015. A copy of the June 2008 Agreement is annexed as Annexure A-5. A copy of the Guarantee Agreement is annexed as Annexure A-6. 2 Amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the default occurred (attach the workings for computation of amount and days of default in tabular form) Total Amount in Default In view of the above, the total amount due and outstanding from the Corporate Debtor, as on 17 September 2018, is USD 30,702,673.83 and GBP 75,000. A tabular break-up of the total amount in default, as on 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lance on the aforesaid table makes it patent that the Financial Creditor has already lodged its claim before Mr. Gaurav Gupta, IRP towards the facilities disbursed by the Financial Creditor to both Principal Borrower as well as Guarantor. The said claim of the Financial Creditor was entertained by Mr. Gaurav Gupta, IRP and included in the aforesaid list as is evident from the list itself. 12. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the same claim could be made the basis for filing an application under Section 7 of the Code for triggering the CIR Process. The question is no longer res integra. In, Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal v. M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2018 decided on 08.01.2019, the Learned Appellate Tribunal held that: ".......However, once for same set of claim application under Section 7 filed by the 'Financial Creditor' is admitted against one of the 'Corporate Debtor' ('Principal Borrower' or 'Corporate Guarantor(s)'), second application by the same 'Financial Creditor' for same set of claim and default cannot be admitted against the other 'Corporate Debtor' (the 'Corporate Guarantor(s) or the ....