TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Entertainment and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad) the Instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(INS) No. 66 of 2022 is preferred by him, on being dissatisfied with the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) in admitting the CP/IB/206/2021 filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant/Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016 seeking to initiate 'CIRP' against the 2nd Respondent. The 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) while passing the 'Impugned Order' dated 05.01.2022 in Company Petition CP/IB/206/2021 at paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 "5. After hearing the Financial Creditor and perusing record, it is observed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at default has occurred for which the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay. Further, it is pertinent herein to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the matter in the case of INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. ICICI Bank & ANR., in Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017, held as under: "............ The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. Under subsection (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate the order passed to the Financial Creditor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chosen not to appear and seeks to set aside the ex-parte Order." The plea of the Appellant is that owing to the 2nd Respondent failure to receive the notice issued by the 1st Respondent and that the reason for which the Appellant raised the plea before this 'Tribunal' in Appeal is that "there was no sufficient notice" as a result of which, the Appellant was very much prejudiced in not projecting the defense/setting up of the case in the Company Petition. The other contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that on 22.12.2021 the letter was issued to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent indicating the change of registered address of the 2nd Respondent and further that it was brought attention of the 1st Respondent that the Regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... OA No.767 of 2018, 'One Time Settlement' proposal was offered by the 'Corporate Debtor' through its Letter dated 02.04.2019 addressed to the 1st Respondent/Bank whereby and whereunder, the Corporate Debtor had admitted its liability towards the 1st Respondent/Bank. In fact, the 1st Respondent /Bank by way of its letter dated 01.09.2019 had accorded its approval in respect of the 'OTS proposal' by determining certain terms and on such condition that in the case of 'Corporate Debtor's failure to pay 'OTS sum' or any instalment within the schedule period, the 1st Respondent/Bank/Financial Creditor reserves its right to cancel the 'OTS' and the entire dues to the 1st Respondent/Bank will be claimed before the 'Tribunal' in the 'Original Applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he MA/61/2020 before the 'Debt Recovery Tribunal', bringing to its notice in spite of the fact that the 'Debtor' had failed to adhere to the terms of 'One-time Settlement' and 'Joint Compromise Memo' and hence relief was sought from the 'Debt Recovery Tribunal' to pass an order for the same claimed in 'Original Application'. The Application before the 'Adjudicating Authority', in the present case, was filed whereby a claim was made for Rs. 277,55,86,069/- outstanding on 19.07.2021 Rs. 137,20,30,278 with accrued interest with effect from 01.09.2016 Rs. 137,65,55,791/0 and non-fund liability of a sum of Rs. 2,70,00,000/-. There is no two opinion of the fact that on 22.11.2021 after due notice and 'Substituted Service' of Paper Publication h....