TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (CIRP) against the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) alleging default in repayment of a Financial Debt. 2. Briefly stated the following are the facts leading to the Petition. The Respondent Company (CIN: U40108AP2010PTC068559) incorporated on 24.05.2010 under Companies Act, 1956 has its Registered Office in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The Company was established inter alia with the object to develop, construct, own, hire, lease or otherwise two facilities for storage of gas, petroleum etc. One Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited (NOCL) decided to establish a 6 Million Tonnes per Annum (MTA) oil refinery at the Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. 3. A Storage Facility consisting of tanks for storing crude oil, intermediate products and the final product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders had sanctioned the loans on the strength of the TSA with NOCL upon satisfying themselves about the viability of the project. The lenders including the Petitioners were conscious of the implications and the interdependency of the viability of the storage facility with the establishment of the refinery. But: the refinery proposed be set up by NOCL did not take off. The Respondent as early as 2012 put NOCL on notice that the delay on its part was likely to result in cost escalation. To it NOCL had agreed. The Petitioners and other lenders were also aware of these developments and had asked the Respondent not to move forward with the implementation of the project, as the NOCL project had been put on hold. The claim amount is disputed and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Code inter alia includes money borrowed against payment of interest. Admittedly credit facility carried an interest on money advanced. The credit was advanced against the consideration for time value of money. The plea raised by the Respondent that the project could not be completed due to the NOCL's inability to set up the refinery and the reasons for the Respondent's inability to repay the loan as defence would be irrelevant 9. ina proceedings under the Code. Admittedly the Respondent has not repaid the loan. Both the issues are accordingly answered in the affirmative. Issue No. II: 10. According to the Petitioners the date of default is 16.03.2015 (Part-IV of the Company Petition). The Company Petition was filed on 25.09.201....