TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JUDGMENT [ Per : Ms. Shreesha Merla , Member (T) ] 1. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 04.08.2021, passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in C.P. No. 4359/IBC/MB/2019, the Suspended Director of the 'Corporate Debtor' Company preferred this Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as the 'Code'). By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Section 7 Application, observing as follows: "1. The 'Corporate Debtor' did not choose to file any reply contesting above Company Petition despite taking so many adjournments and also not complied the conditional order dated 16.03.2021 before which date he was directed to file reply. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. * Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the first Respondent had foreseen the true potential of the operations of the 'Corporate Debtor' and initiated negotiations with the late father of the Appellant to invest an amount of Rs. 1 Crore in the form of equity partnership in the 'Corporate Debtor' Company. * Ld. Counsel argued that the said amount was provided in the form of financial assistance and there is no whisper about the amount being a term loan or any kind of loan. It is contended that it was only in the form of an 'investment' and therefore the amount cannot be termed as a ''Financial Debt''. It is denied that the 'Corporate Debtor' had expressed its desire to con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vakalatnama on 16.03.2021 and had sought time to file a Reply. The effective hearing happened only on 26.07.2021, on which date the Adjudicating Authority had forfeited the right of the 'Corporate Debtor' to file a Reply without giving any final opportunity. * It is further contended that no document can be taken into consideration by the courts if the said electronic documents are not duly supported by Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, the reliance on the electronic documents is completely misplaced and concluded his arguments that the Adjudicating Authority had erroneously admitted the Section 7 Application without giving a proper opportunity to the 'Corporate Debtor' to file their reply and contest the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material on record that first notice was directed to be issued by the Adjudicating Authority on 09.12.2019 and Ms. Shivangi Agarwal had appeared before the Adjudicating Authority and offered to file her vakalatnama on 20.01.2020. On 06.02.2020 time was sought to file Reply and the matter was adjourned. On 05.03.2020, the Respondent Counsel was absent. On 08.02.2021, since the matter was taken up after the covid situation, the Counsel for the Petitioner was directed again to issue a notice informing the Respondent regarding the next date of hearing. It is a matter of record that on 16.03.2021, Respondent Counsel Mr. Sanjay Ruia, was present and filed his vakalatnama and sought for two weeks time to file his Reply. On 07.04.2021, the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orporate Debtor' to the first Respondent for Rs. 1 Crore but was subsequently dishonored. 9. The 'Corporate Debtor' had acknowledged that amounts were due on 01.04.2015, on 01.04.2016 and on 01.04.2018 and the cheque was dishonored on 17.07.2019. The amount disbursed has consideration for time value of money as it also involves payment of interest @ 18% p.a. 10. The Promisory Note only indicates that there was an acknowledgement of a debt to be repaid with interest. It is significant to mention that the 'Financial Creditor' had not sought for enforcement of this promisory note and therefore, the question of it being stamped and the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 being applicable, does not arise in this case. The material on reco....