TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on behalf of Corporate Debtor 3.1. According to the Financial Creditor, in or about the year 2008, it was approached by the Corporate Debtor for sanction of credit facilities for Rs. 1162 Lakh. The Financial Creditor accordingly sanctioned credit facilities vide sanction letter dated 16.06.2008. The said sanction letter is annexed to the application as Annexure 4. 3.2. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor approached the Financial Creditor on multiple occasions for renewal of Credit Facilities and the Financial Creditor, on each separate occasion, renewed the credit facilities by the following sanction letters: a. Sanction letter dated 21.07.2009 for Rs.1489 Lakhs [Annexure 5]; b. Sanction letter dated 22.06.2010 for Rs.2041 Lakhs [Annexure 6]; c. Sanction letter dated 19.06.2012 for Rs.3191 Lakhs [Annexure 7]; d. Sanction letter dated 29.09.2012 for Rs.3380 Lakhs [Annexure 8]; 3.3. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor failed and neglected to pay its dues and interest on facilities as sanctioned by the Financial Creditor, and accordingly the account of the Corporate Debtor was declared NPA on 30.09.2012. The Financial Creditor accordingly sanctioned total credit facility of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording to the project submitted by the respondent was for two years, and the same was accepted by the bank in their sanction letter by not mentioning any validity period of sanction. Further, there was a condition that the promoters of the respondent would bring their contribution as upfront and would invest the same in the project before disbursement of any amount as per sanction dated 29.12.2005 by the applicant bank. As per the terms of the sanction letter dated 29.12.2005, the promoters of the respondent company have invested their contribution in the project and subsequently, approached the applicant bank for disbursement as per their sanction. At that point of time, instead of disbursement of the amount it was informed by the applicant bank that validity of sanction letter 29th of December, 2005 has expired. 10.5. The Applicant bank has not averred anything about first sanction of the year 2005 and pleaded that the first sanction had taken place only in 2008 therefore, the bank has suppressed the factual position from this Adjudicating Authority. 10.6. The Applicant bank stopped the disbursement of the sanctioned limit and therefore, the Corporate Debtor suffered huge loss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Financial Creditor have been made by the Corporate Debtor, specifically, the Corporate Debtor has acknowledged the debt in the balance sheets of Financial Years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. In this regard, we seek to rely on the law laid down in Laxmi Pat Surana V. Union Bank of India & Anr, decided on March 21, 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "37. Ordinarily, upon declaration of the loan account/debt as NPA that date can be reckoned as the date of default to enable the financial creditor to initiate action under Section 7 of the Code. However, Section 7 comes into play when the corporate debtor commits "default". Section 7, consciously uses the expression "default" not the date of notifying the loan account of the corporate person as NPA. Further, the expression "default" has been defined in Section 3(12) to mean non-payment of "debt" when whole or any part or instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not paid by the debtor or the corporate debtor, as the case may be. In cases where the corporate person had offered guarantee in respect of loan transaction, the right of the financial creditor to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Hon'ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [(2018)1SCC407] wherein it was held that: "30. On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case of a corporate debtor who commits a default of a financial debt, the adjudicating authority has merely to see the records of the information utility or other evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is "due" i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise." Further, in Khan Bahadur Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga prasad, [(1962) 1 SCR 140], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "6.....Words used in the acknowledgment must, however, indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred by implicatio....