TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24.03.2011 in favour of the Applicant. The Applicant enhanced the Working capital facilities and renewed the cash credit limit of the Corporate Debtor to Rs. 70 Crores vide a sanction letter dated 03.02.2012. On 15.02.2012 the Applicant executed a Supplement Agreement of Loan for Increase in overall limit. The Respondent stood as a Personal Guarantor for the enhanced credit facilities extended to the Corporate Debtor and executed a Supplement Deed of Guarantee on 15.02.2012 in favour of the Applicant. Inspite of several reminders, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the outstanding debt amount. On 15.12.2017 the Applicant filed an Original Appeal against the Corporate Debtor before the Debt Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai. The said Original Application is pending. On the request made by the Company for settlement under compromise, the Applicant sanctioned an OTS for Rs. 40,00,00,000/- and issued a sanction letter dated 01.04.2019 with the last date of payment as 29.06.2019. However, it did not materialise and failed. Thus, the default occurred on 29.06.2019. The Applicant filed a Petition under Section 7 of IBC before this Tribunal and the same was admitted vide order dated 03.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asoning, a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L.) No. 21271 & 21272 of 2021 between Surendra B. Jiwrajka vs Omkara Assets Reconstruction can be looked into. It was held by the Bombay High Court that from an analysis of the provisions contained in sections 95 to 100 of IBC, it can be seen that a definite time-line has been provided at each stage of the proceeding. That apart, the interim moratorium in terms of Section 96, which commences from the date of the Application, remains in force till the date of admission of such application under section 100 of IBC. Though time-lines have been prescribed at each stage of the proceeding, leading to acceptance or rejection of the application under section 100, no such time-line has been prescribed for submission of report by the resolution professional, though section 100 provides that the adjudicating authority shall take a decision either admitting or rejecting the application within 14 days from the date of submission of the report. That apart, on a careful examination of section 100, before the adjudicating authority takes a decision to either admit or reject the application upon receipt of report from the resolution pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in Para 81 of the judgment in Lalit Kumar Jain, that it was evident that the method adopted by the Central Government to bring into force different provisions of IBC had a specific design which was to fulfil the objectives underlying the code, having regard to its priorities. The NCLAT has considered Section 95 (5) of IBC, 2016 which requires the Creditor to provide copy of the application under sub-section (1) to the debtor and felt that it has to be read with Rule 3 (1) (g) which is as under: "Rule 3 (1)(g): "serve" means sending any communication by any means, including registered post, speed post, courier or electronic means, which is capable of producing or generating an acknowledgement of receipt of such communication: Provided that where a document cannot be served in any of the modes, it shall be affixed at the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house or building in which the addressee ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain." It held that, it is evident from a reading of the Section along with the Rule, that what the Creditor has to serve is the copy of the application "made under sub-section (1)" to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gives an opportunity to the debtor to prove repayment of debt claimed as unpaid by the creditor. Section 99 (4) of IBC, empowers the Resolution Professional to seek further information or explanation in connection with the application as may be required from the Debtor or the Creditor or any other person, who, in the opinion of the Resolution Professional, may provide such information. Hence it is not as if, the Debtor is not provided an audience before the submission of the report. Hence I do not see any violation of principles of natural justice by not giving an opportunity to the Debtor for making his submissions before the appointment of IRP. As observed by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Lalit Kumar Jain case, it is in its wisdom that the legislature has enacted various provisions which are unambiguous and do not leave any scope for interpretation, with regard to the issuance of notice and giving the right of audience to the Debtor at the stage of appointment of IRP. It can be noted that the judgment of Bombay High Court in Surendra B. Jiwrajka vs Omkara Assets Reconstruction case was carried to the Supreme Court and is pending. The Supreme Court has ordered for the Resol....