TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anthi Edifice Private Limited, Hyderabad has focused on an instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.315/2022, filed before this 'Tribunal', as an 'aggrieved person', on being dissatisfied with the 'Impugned Order' dated 27.06.2022 in CP (IB) No.109/7/HDB/2020 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad), in admitting the Section 7 Application filed by the 1st Respondent / Financial Creditor / Petitioner under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2) The 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) while passing the 'Impugned Order' on 27.06.2022 at Paragraph Nos.14 to 18 had observed the following: - "14. Having heard the learned counsels ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Act." 16. Thus, from the aforesaid undisputed factual matrix of this case, availing of both fund-based (towards working capital and non-fund based (Bank Guarantee) credit facilities to the tune of Rs.74,52,87,564.93 and Rs.19,16,20,100.00 respectively from the Applicant / Financial Creditor, besides default in payment of the fund based credit facility stands established. 17. So much so, even if we accept the argument of the Ld. SR. Counsel for the Corporate debtor that invocation of Bank Guarantee and debiting amount covered by the Bank Guarantee to the account of the Financial Creditor is illegal and unsustainable, yet the defaulted amount under the fund-based credit facilities by the Corporate Debtor being beyond th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y' should have appreciated the persistence and constant negotiations with reference to the 'One Time Settlement' (OTS), which was undergoing between the parties. 4) Not resting with the above, the Corporate Debtor had also referred to a letter dated 15.06.2022 of the 1st Respondent / Canara Bank agreeing the 'OTS' offer of Rs.55 Crore. Considering the 'OTS' of the Appellant favourably by the 1st Respondent and is an utmost possibility of settlement between the parties, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, in the instant case, admits the 'debt and default' aspect, as held by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) in the 'Impugned Order' dated 27.06.2022 in CP(IB) No.109/7/HDB/2020. 5)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent / Bank / Financial Creditor was on 22.04.2022 and these facts, are not in dispute. 8) The entry in the 'Balance Sheet', undoubtedly, is an Acknowledgment of Debt in regard to the aspect of extending the period of Limitation, in terms of the ingredients of Section '18' of the Limitation Act, 1963. 9) At this juncture, it is projected on the side of the 1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor that the recent 'OTS proposal' of the 'Corporate Debtor' dated 15.06.2022 was also rejected by the 1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor on 21.07.2022. 10) This 'Tribunal' has heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and noted their contentions. 11) It is brought to the fore that the 1st Respondent / Bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the 1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor before the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) is not maintainable in 'Law'. Further, there was a suppression of facts and non-disclosure of 'Default' or event of 'Default' by the Financial Creditor / Bank and, in short, the 1st Respondent / Bank had indulged malafide illegal and arbitrary action against it. 14) To be noted, that the total sum outstanding on Secure Overdraft facility as per the Statement of Account dated 30.11.2019 was Rs.74,52,87,564.93 Ps. and BG outstanding was Rs.19,16,20,100.00 as per particulars of 'Financial Debt' mentioned in Part IV of the Section 7 Application filed by the Syndicate Bank / Financial Creditor (presen....