TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ector of the 'Corporate Debtor' (M/s. YKM 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 Finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Financial Creditor has proved its case by placing evidence that 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is knowing it pretty well that there is a matter pending. The Corporate Debtor had deliberately 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 184,82,88,871/- together with interest. It comes to be known that during the pendency of the aforesaid 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 1^st Respondent/Bank/Financial Creditor reserves its right to cancel the '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Settlement' which was sanctioned earlier, got annulled. In fact, the 1st Respondent/Financial Creditor/Bank projected the 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/-. ....