2018 (12) TMI 1967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tor-32, Institutional Area, Gurugram 122001, Haryana and Branch office at Recovery, Resolution & Law, Gyan Devi Complex, Basai Road, Gurugram, Haryana 122001. It was incorporated on 15.04.1980 and was assigned Identification Number AAACOO191M. 2. Mr. Narendra Kumar, Chief Manager, has been authorized by the power of attorney dated 18.07.2006 along with letter of authority dated 16.04.2018 and Board Resolution dated 15.03.20 18 [Annexure-A/ 1 (colly)] to submit and sign the petition. 3. The Corporate Debtor-M/s. Case Cold Roll Forming Limited was incorporated on 05.08.1992. The identification number of the Corporate Debtor is U74899DL2000PLC 103752 and its registered office is situated at 74, Hemkunt Colony, Opposite Nehru Place, Delhi-110048. 4. The Financial Creditor has proposed the name of Shri Sanjay Gupta, C-4-E/ 135, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, email id sanjayabsolutehotmail.com. A certificate of registration issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has been placed on record (pgs. No. 39-41). He has registration No. IBBI/IPA 003/IP-N00047/2017-18/ 10354. A written communication dated 20.04.2018 sent by Mr. Gupta in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... clear the unpaid debt/liability. 8. The Corporate Debtor also issued Registration of Charge Form 8 in favour of the Financial Creditor for the facilities availed by it. A copy of the Registration of Charge Form 8 has been placed on record (Annexure A-10) which is in compliance of Section 77 & 78 of the Companies Act, 2013. 9. In Part V of the petition the Financial Creditor has mentioned the particulars of the documents and records that substantiate the factum of the Loan disbursed and the amount claimed to be in default. 10. Learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor has opposed the admission of the petition and has advanced the following arguments: - (i) The Petitioner has failed to quantify the total debt amount against the aforesaid financial facilities under Part-IV of the Form-1. (ii) The amount claimed to be in default in Part-IV, Point 2 of the Form-I is Rs. 1,24,89,41,641/- which is incorrect as the Petitioner Bank has included the amounts which relate to bank guarantees invoked due to the default of the Petitioner. (iii) The Corporate Debtor requested the Petitioner to extend the Bank Guarantees which has not been renewed by the Petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the debt is disputed so long as the debt is "due" i.e. payable unless iriterdicted 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." In light of the aforesaid observations the scope of enquiry in these summary proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority is limited to evaluate records provided by the Financial Creditor to satisfy itself that the financial debt was disbursed and that the default has occurred. In order to ascertain whether the default has occurred, it will be profitable to read Section 3 (12) of the Code which states that default means non-payment of debt when whole or any part of the instalment of the debt has become due & payable and the same has not been repaid by the 'Corporate Debtor'. The Financial Creditor has specified the details of each sanctioned facility mentioned in the application along with other crucial documents. In the present case, it has come on record predominantly that the 'default' has occurred many a times. 14. Another objection raised b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orate Debtor is that settlement proposal were under consideration between the parties outside of the mechanism of the Code. On 11.06.2018, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent stated that a restructuring proposal sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor was under consideration and it was accepted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. However, we directed the learned counsel for the respondent to file reply on or before the next date of hearing and ordered for listing the matter on 26.07.2018. On 26.07.2018 it came on record that the proposal for settlement between the parties was exchanged and process for consideration by the Financial Creditor was in queue, therefore, the learned counsels sought further adjournment. We accepted the prayer and ordered for listing the matter on 29.08.2018. On 29.08.2018 learned counsel for the petitioner stated that OTS proposal has been rejected by the Bank and matter was to be heard on merit. We ordered for listing the matter on 25.09.2018. On 25.09.2018 learned counsel for the petitioner again stated that further proposal for settlement was rejected and due intimation has been sent to the responden....