2022 (3) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) with a prayer to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent Company M/s. Ratchet Laboratories Limited, referred to as the corporate debtor. 2. As succinctly put, the facts of the present case are that the applicant Intec Capital Limited, is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) duly registered with Reserve Bank of India, having its Registered Office at 708, Manjusha Building 57, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Ms. Chandan has been duly authorized on behalf of applicant vide Board Resolution dated 25.04.2020, has preferred the present application on behalf of the applicant for initiation of insolvency resolution process against the respondent under the Code. A copy of the Board Resolution dated 25.04.2020 h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 32 of the loan agreement. The Arbitration proceeding was also initiated resulting in Arbitral Award dated 26.02.2016 in favor of the applicant. The last transaction made in the loan account of corporate debtor was cheque no. 830009, reversed on 17.01.2018. Proceedings u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 was filed by applicant against corporate debtor. Therefore, as per part IV of the application it is claimed that as on 31.12.2020 a sum of Rs. 14,92,24,164/- is due and payable by the respondent company. 6. Sub-section (3) (b) of Section 7 mandates the financial creditor to furnish the name of an Interim Resolution Professional. In compliance thereof the applicant has proposed the name of Mr. Sanjay Chopra, for appointment as Int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... record of default filed with NeSL (information utility) in respect of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in its repayment owed to the Financial Creditor. The said record shows that claim of applicant is 'deemed to be authenticated'. 9. The respondent corporate debtor was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2021. 10. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and thoroughly perused the case records. The applicant first time recalled the entire loan amount vide Loan Recall Notice dated 06.05.2015 and also initiated Arbitration Proceeding against the Corporate Debtor resulting in Arbitral Award dated 26.02.2016. Therefore, the date of default committed by Corporate Debtor would be the date of loan recall notice ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elied upon are not helpful to the applicant. Whereas, Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of Mr. Sagar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 177 of 2019, vide its order dated 07.02.2020 has held as follows: "23. Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 relates to 'breaches and torts', for the purpose of counting the fresh period of limitation. The said Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be applicable to find out whether the claim is barred by limitation or not, but cannot be made applicable for counting the period of limitation for Application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, which is to be counted from the date of default/NPA as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ....