TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, has been filed by UCO Bank through its Flagship Corporate Branch, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Financial Creditor), seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Limtex (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporate Debtor). Submissions on behalf of the Financial Creditor: 3. The corporate Debtor was a constituent of the Financial Creditor and was enjoying credit facilities with the Financial Creditor with an aggregate limit Rs. 15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Only) under a consortium arrangement with State Bank of India, inter alia, in the following Accounts:- i) Cash Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he guarantors to liquidate their dues with the Financial Creditor in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the Financial Creditor was compelled to call up the said credit facilities and issued Notice of Demand dated 6 March, 2017 demanding payment of the entire outstanding from the Corporate Debtor. 7. In spite of such demand made as aforesaid, the Corporate Debtor has failed to liquidate the outstanding in the said accounts. The Corporate Debtor availed of the aforesaid credit facilities but failed to operate the said accounts in conformity with the terms and conditions on the basis or which it was granted and started defaulting in liquidating the outstanding dues and/or to regularize the accounts there became due from and owing by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pendency of the said application, the Financial Creditor is not entitled to file the instant petition. 10. The Corporate debtor denies that as on 30 September 2019, the outstanding principal payable by the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 25,58,52,513/-. Further, it is stated that Sri Prasanjit Roy, who has verified and affirmed the affidavit in support of the application under section 7 of the Code, is not legally authorized by the Financial Creditor to do so and on this ground too, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed Rejoinder on behalf of the Financial Creditor: 11. It is submitted on behalf of the Financial Creditor that the instant petition under section 7 of the Code is maintainable and not barred by the laws of limitation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings are independent and there is no embargo under the law. It is denied that during the pendency of SARFAESI application the financial creditor is not entitled to file a petition under Section 7 of the Code as alleged or at all. 14. It is denied that Prasenjit Roy is not properly, legally or validly authorized by UCO Bank to sign or affirm the instant section 7 petition or that the instant application is liable to be dismissed with costs as alleged or at all. Analysis and Findings 15. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor and the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor and perused the records. 16. The date of default in the instant petition is 30 June 2016 i.e. the date on which the accounts of the Corporate Debt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant application under section 7 of the Code is complete in all respects. 19. It is, accordingly, hereby ordered as follows:- a) The application bearing CP(IB) No. 1837/KB/2019 filed by UCO Bank (Financial Creditor), under section 7 of the Code read with rule 4(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP against Limtex (India) Limited, CIN: U01132WB1992PLC054383, the Corporate Debtor, is admitted. b) There shall be a moratorium under section 14 of the IBC. c) The moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the CIRP or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 3....