TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the, Respondent / Corporate Debtor through its Directors Late Shri Avinash Rangnekar approached the erstwhile State Bank of Patiala with an Application for availing for (i) Term Loan I (Corporate Loan) of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, (ii) Term Loan II of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, (iii) Term Loan III (Crop Loan) of Rs.2,00,00,000/- totaling to Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (iv) Cash Credit Limit of Rs.3,50,00,000/- with a sub limit of FBP/FBD of Rs.2,00,00,000/ (within the overall limit of Rs.3,50,00,000/-) and (v) Letter of Credit Limit of Rs.50,00,000/- Grand Total of Rs. 16,00,00,000/-. State Bank of India had acquired the business including assets and liabilities of State Bank of Patiala by way of amalgamation vide Gazette Notification No. 128 dated 22.02.2017. 3. The Applicant further states that, erstwhile State Bank of Patiala have considered the above request of Respondent through its Directors and have sanctioned (i) Term Loan - I (Corporate Loan) of Rs.5,00,00,000/ , (ii) Term Loan II of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, (iii) Term Loan III (Crop Loan) of Rs.2,00,00,000/- totaling to Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (iv) Cash Credit Limit of Rs.3,50,00,000/- with a sub limit of FBP/FBD of Rs.2,00,00,000/ (within the overall lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arges. The Applicant further states that the said charges has been noted in the Revenue Records. 7. The Applicant further states that Respondent have failed and neglected to regularize the account, and service interest in the said Account, Hence the account is out of order since long time. The Applicant states that the account of Respondent declared as NPA on 28.02.2013 w.e.f. 30.06.2013 in accordance with the RBI guidelines. 8. The Applicant further states that, since the Respondent have failed to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhile State Bank of Patiala by their Notice dated 05.11.2014 to the Respondent issued u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI, Act 2002 to pay a sum of Rs.19,81,52,019.43 (Rupees Nineteen Crores Eighty One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Nineteen and Paise Forty Three Only). However, Respondent have failed and Neglected to repay the outstanding dues. 9. The Respondent is liable to pay to the Applicants the outstanding amounts of Rs.50,23,75,899.89 as on 15.09.2019 along with further Interest/charges as on date. 9. In view of the above the circumstances and events leading to the filing Of the present Application are substantiated in detail, which make out A clear case fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submitted that as the date of default in present case is 14.03.2013, three years period expired on 13.03.2016 and the Company Petition (IB) was filed by the Applicant against Respondent on 18.09.2019 with a delay of 1150 days. It is further submitted that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was passed by the parliament in May, 2016 and became effective only from December, 2016. It is pertinent to note that section 238A of IBC was inserted vide Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 06.06.2018. Therefore, the delay from 13.03.2016 to 18.09.2019 was beyond the control of the Applicant although the Applicant as enumerated hereinabove had very diligently and timely initiated various other proceedings against the Respondent for recovery of its dues. 17. It is submitted during the period from 13.03.2016 till date of filing CIRP application, the Applicant on one hand was exploring all the options available under law for recovery of its legitimate dues and on other hand was also negotiating for settlement. The Applicant submits that the Respondent is not in a financial position to pay off its debts and the securities are deteriorating day by day ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Petition (IB) be condoned in the interest of both the parties as well as other stakeholders 21. The Applicant submits that this Hon'ble Tribunal have powers to condone the delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read as under: Section 5: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. 22. That there are sufficient and plausible reasons for acceptance of the present application and to condone the delay in filing the Company Petition. 23. The present Interlocutory Application for Condonation of Delay is made bonafide. The Applicant further submits that if this Interlocutory Application is not allowed serious harm, loss and injury will be caused to the Applicant. No prejudice will be caused to the Respondents if the present Application is allowed. The submissions of the Respondent are as follows 24. Mr. Anirudh Rangnekar, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts as well as submissions have been pleaded in the said Application which are completely contrary to the contents of the Applicant's application under section 7 of the Code. 29. The Respondent is unaware as to whether the deponent of the said Application has the requisite authority to file the said Application and put the deponent to strict proof thereof. On perusing the said Application, it is quite clear that no Board Resolution/ Power of Attorney/ Authority Letter issued by the Applicant in favour of the deponent is annexed. Further, the gazette mentioned therein is also not annexed to the said Application. On this ground alone, the said Application deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 30. The Respondent deal with reference to paragraph 14 of the said Application, the contents contained therein are denied in toto and the deponent is put to strict proof thereof. It is pertinent to know that the Applicant has pleaded in the OA filed before the Hon'ble DRT that the NPA date was in the year 2013. On this ground alone, the said Application ought to be dismissed. Assuming without admitting that there was a continuing cause of action ensuing to the Applicant's favour ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13.03.2016 to 18.09.2019 in filing the above C.P. bearing No. 3408/2019. It is appropriate to mention here that, the above delay condonation petition was filed on 01.03.2021 and whereas the main Company Petition in which the Interlocutory Application was filed on 19.09.2019. Thus, admittedly the present I.A. is not filed along with the Main Company Petition and therefore the Petitioner has to explain the delay in not filing the above I.A. from 19.09.2019 till the filing date on i.e. 01.03.2021 since there is already a delay in filing the main Company Petition and therefore the delay is more than 1150 days. 2. The only reason assigned in Para 18 of the Petition is that the Petitioner is exploring all the options available under law for recovery of its legitimate dues and on the other hand was also negotiating for settlement. The Petitioner except devoting more space in pleading various facts with regard to initiating various proceedings against the Corporate Debtor for recovery before the DRT etc. did not explain even a single day's delay. 3. Even according to the Petitioner, the loan facilities were availed by the Corporate Debtor from the original lender State Bank of Patiala wa....