TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before this 'Tribunal', as an 'Aggrieved Person', on being dissatisfied with the 'impugned order' dated 15.11.2022, in CP(IB) No. 308 / 07 / HDB / 2022, (Filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad). 2. The 'Adjudicating Authority', ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad), while passing the 'impugned order' dated 15.11.2022 in CP(IB) No. 308 / 07 / HDB / 2022, among other things, at Paragraphs 2 (a) to 2 (j), had observed the following: 2. "Brief facts of the case as stated by the Applicant is as under:- a. That the Applicant (earlier State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur which got merged with the Applicant) along with consortium of lenders on the request of the Corporate Debtor has sanctioned Term Loans including Short Term Loans, Equipment Loans, Demand Loan, ECB Loan and working capital facilities, both fund based and non-fund based for the purpose and the terms and conditions contained in various loan agreements / facility agreements entered into between the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant and other lende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uctured amount of Applicant was Rs.50 crores which is part of FB-WC Facility E. e. The Applicant submits that the above-mentioned restructured facilities were secured by (1) Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.03.2015 (ii) Personal Guarantee Agreement dated 12.03.2015 (iii) Corporate Guarantee Agreement dated 12.03.2015 (iv) Pledge Agreement dated 12.03.2015 and Power of Attorney (v) Memorandum of Entry dated 12.03.2015 and Declaration and Undertaking dated 12.03.2015 (vi) Trust and Retention Agreement dated 23.01.2015 (vii) Security Trustee Agreement dated 23.01.2015. f. The Applicant submits that at the request of the Corporate Debtor, the lenders have from time-to-time either revised or enhanced or granted additional facilities to the Corporate Debtor. g. The Applicant submits that as on the date of Seventh Amendment to the MRA on 09.11.2020 the following facilities were extended to the Corporate Debtor by the lenders. In Crores Facility Aggregate Limit Facility A-Restructured Term Loan 347.08 Facility B-Rupee Term Loan (ECB) by IDBI Bank 107.64 Facility C-Working Capital Term Loan 124.44 Facility D-Funded Interest Term Loan (F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that various 'Term Loans', including 'Short Term Loans', 'Equipment Loans', 'Demand Loans', 'ECB Loans' and 'Working Capital Facilities' (both Fund based and non-Fund based) to the 'Corporate Debtor, was provided from time to time and that a 'Sum' of Rs. 242,33,00,269/-, became 'Due' and 'Payable' as on 30.09.2022 and the 'Account' of the 'Corporate Debtor', was 'Classified' as 'Non Performing Asset' on 30.04.2022 and despite 'Opportunity', the 'Corporate Debtor', had failed to place any 'Record', disclosing that there was 'no Debt or Default', as 'Claimed', by the '1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor / Applicant', and 'Admitted' the main 'Petition', 'appointed' the 'Interim Resolution Professional Viz. Mr. Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi and 'declared', 'Moratorium', etc. Appellant's Submissions: 3. Assailing the 'Validity', 'Propriety' and 'Legality' of the 'impugned order' dated 15.11.2022, in CP(IB) No. 308 / 07 / HDB / 2022, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad), filed by the '1st Respondent / Applicant / Financial Creditor' (under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016), the Learned Senior Counsel for the 'App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor had made out any ground against admission of the present application for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the 'Corporate Debtor' and found none." and contends that 'after taking note of the Paragraph 88 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision, in the matter of Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. [2022] 8 SCC 352, came to an untenable conclusion, because of the fact that the question of considering the 'Corporate Debtor's objections does not even arise, as none could be placed on record, due to an 'unwarranted haste' of the 'Adjudicating Authority'. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the 'Proceedings', under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, are not to be 'concluded', unless and until, the 'respective parties', are provided with a 'fair' and 'reasonable' opportunity of hearing them. 11. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, adverts to Rule 37 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which enjoins as under: 37. "Notice to Opposite Party: (1) The Tribunal shall issue notice to the respondent to show cause against the application or petition on a date of hearing to be specified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner or applicant, to the Registry before the date of hearing and such reply and copies of documents shall form part of the record." 12. The procedure, which is to be adopted by the Tribunal has to be in consonance with the rules of natural justice and equity as required by the rules itself. Unless, it is held that due to non-filing of the reply before the date of hearing by the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority is obliged to decide the application under Section 7, the Adjudicating Authority has ample jurisdiction to consider any request for reasonable time by a Corporate Debtor for filing a reply. The Tribunal is fully entitle to grant time for filing a reply asked for by the Corporate Debtor on the first date of hearing. Rejecting the request of the Corporate Debtor on the very first day for grant of time to file a reply, cannot be said to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. There can be no dispute that in appropriate case, if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Corporate Debtor is deliberately delaying the matter, the request for grant of any further time to file a reply can be refused. But present is not a case where i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Rule 48 of the NCLAT Rules which, inter alia, provides: "48. Issue of notice − (1) Where notice of an appeal or petition or interlocutory application is issued by the Appellate Tribunal, copies of the same, the affidavit in support thereof and if so ordered by the Appellate Tribunal the copy of other documents filed therewith, if any, shall be served along with the notice on the other side." 8. Rule 48 of the NCLAT Rules clearly stipulates service of notice on the other side, pursuant to issuance of notice by the NCLAT in the appeal, regardless of supply of advance copy of appeal paper book prior to the issuance of notice by NCLAT. Further, Rule 52 of the NCLAT Rules categorically states that the judicial section of the registry of the NCLAT shall record, in the "Notes of the Registry" column in the order-sheet, the details regarding completion of service of notice on the respondents. It notes: "52. Entries regarding service of notice or process.− The Judicial Section of the Registry shall record in the column in the order-sheet 'Notes of the Registry', the details regarding completion of service of notice on the respondents, such as date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o over Rs.850,00,00,000/-, which are at the execution stage and these aspects were not considered by the 'Adjudicating Authority', at the time of passing the 'impugned order' and mechanically 'allowed' the 'Application' (projected under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016), by arriving at a conclusion that the 'Corporate Debtor', will be unable to 'repay' the 'Debt'. 18. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the 'Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process', Proceedings are 'Proceedings in Rem' (as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 (vide Paragraph 82). 19. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the 'Adjudicating Authority', as per 'Order' dated 21.10.2022, had granted two weeks' time to the 'Appellant', to file its 'Reply' to the Section 7 'Application' of the 'Code', and further the 'Notice, as per the 'Respondents', only served on 26.10.2022 and as such the period to file 'Reply would not come to an end, before 9 / 10.11.2022, therefore the 'Adjudicating Authority' was required to adjourn the matter beyond 09.11.2022, rather than setting the 'Appellant Ex-parte' on 04.01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e I & B Code, under Insolvency and Bankruptcy ('Application to Adjudicating Authority') Rules, 2016, which is mandatory in character. 29. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, projects an argument that 'Section 238 of the I & B Code, 2016', will prevail over any other 'Law', for the time being in force. 30. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank submits that in a procedural provision, (Viz. Rule 37 of the 'NCLT' Rules, 2016, the word 'shall' may not make the same mandatory, if otherwise, no prejudice is caused. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir & Ors., reported in (2003) 8 SCC at Page 498, wherein at Paragraph 50, it is observed as under: 50. "Furthermore, a provision in a statute which is procedural in nature, although employs the word "shall", may not be held to be mandatory, if thereby no prejudice is caused. (See Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur (1965) 1 SCR 970, State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364, Venkataswamppa v. Special Dy. Commr. Revenue (1997) 9 SCC 128 and RaI Vimal Krishna and Ors. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epresent their case. 37. When the matter came up for hearing, before the 'Adjudicating Authority', on 10.11.2022, there was no 'appearance' on behalf of the '2nd Respondent', and hence, the matter was 'Reserved for Orders'. 38. Also that, on 10.11.2022, the following 'Petitions' against the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor', were listed before the 'Adjudicating Authority', namely; (a) CP No. 32 / 2022 (filed by Bank of Baroda) along with IAs as item 108; (b) CP No. 26 / 2022 (filed by IL & FS Financial Services Limited) along with IAs as item 109; (c) CP No. 308 / 2022 (filed by SBI as item 111), and in reality, the 2nd Respondent in item 108 and 109, was represented and it was contested. Besides this, the '2nd Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', was not represented in other two matters, on the same day i.e., 10.11.2022. Later, on 15.11.2022, the 'Adjudicating Authority', had 'admitted' the 'Application', filed by the '1st Respondent' / 'Bank'. 39. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent points out that, as per Rule 38 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, an 'Adjudicating Authority', is empowered to direct the 'Parties', to undertake 'Private Notice', on the 'Appellant', and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions." 46. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent points out that the 2nd Respondent as on 30.09.2022, is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.242,33,00,269/- and that the '2nd Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', had 'Admitted', the 'Default' / 'Debt', in the undermentioned documents: (a) Balance Confirmation as on 31.03.2021 (vide Page 172 of Reply filed by the 1st Respondent). (b) Reply to Section 13 (3-A) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 (vide Page 173 of Reply filed by the 1st Respondent - Para 9 in Page 176). (c) Annual Report 2021 - 2022 (vide Page 199 of Reply of the 1st Respondent). 47. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank, refers to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under the Caption 'Facts admitted need not be proved': - "No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation (1971) 1 WLR 1578 at 1595, who said that a 'breach of procedure ... cannot give (rise to) a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court dos not act in vain'. Relying on these comments, Brandon LJ opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority [MANU/UKWA/0013/1980] : (1980) 1 WLR 582 and 593 that 'no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing'. In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since 'right' result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by the Courts. Even if it is found by the Court that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the Courts have held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural require....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 04.08.2005, in the matter of P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job. (vide Civil Appeal No. 4677 of 2005), reported in (2005) 6 SCC 478, wherein, it is observed as under: "..... Though the notice was correctly addressed and despite the intimation by the post office, the notice was not accepted by the Respondent and was returned unserved. In such circumstances, the presumption of law is that the notice has been served on the Respondent. The High Court, in our view, has also misinterpreted Section 27 of the Post Office Act, 1998. The requirement of Section has been complied with in this case. The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in accordance with factual position. In the notice issued, the Postman has made the endorsement. This presumption is correct in law. He had given notice and intimation. Nevertheless, the respondent did not receive the notice and it was returned unserved. Therefore, in our view, there is no obligation cast on the appellant to examine the Postman as assumed by the High Court. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, operates apart from that under the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court dated 01.08.2007 (vide Civil Misc. Recall Appln. No. 110206 of 2007 in C.M.W.P. No. 6586 of 2006), in Hari Gopal v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. 57. The 'Burden', to 'establish' the 'Service of Summons', is on the 'Plaintiff', as per decision AIR 1925 Cal. Page 801. 58. Indeed, the 'Mode of Service', by a 'Registered Post Acknowledgment Due', is an 'additional', and not an 'alternative Mode of Service', as per decision 2001 AIHC Page 1408, 1413 (MP). Task of an 'Adjudicating Authority: 59. An 'Adjudicating Authority', under the I & B Code, 2016, is to provide a 'reasonable opportunity', to a 'Corporate Debtor', and as per sub-section 4 (7) of the Code, is to 'ascertain the factum of 'Default', from the records of 'Information Utility' or from the 'evidence furnished', by the 'Financial Creditor'. 60. Where the 'Record' showed that an 'Application' / 'Petition' was preferred on the 'Proforma', prescribed under the Rule 4 (2) of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016', and if an 'Adjudicating Authority', was satisfied, if the 'Default', had taken place, there is no 'illegality', in 'admitting' the 'Application', filed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iry of period of Limitation', as per decision in State Bank of India v. Meghraj Contractor & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 Chh. 149. Balance Confirmation: 70. In 'Law', a 'Letter' of 'Balance Confirmation', extends the 'period of 'Limitation'. Discretion: 71. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Jai Singhani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427 at 1434, had observed that 'Discretion', is governed by 'Rule', and it must not be an 'Arbitrary', a 'Vague' and a 'Fanciful' one. 72. A 'Judicial Discretion', is to be 'regulated', as per 'known Rules of Law', and not on 'mere impulse' or 'whim' of a 'Person', for whom, it is given on the 'hypothesis' that he is 'circumspect'. 73. This 'Tribunal', appositely points out that, where the 'Legislature', concedes wide 'Discretion', it also, 'imposes', a 'heavy responsibility', as per decision AIR 1933 Sind 49. Assessment: 74. On behalf of the Appellant, it is projected before the 'Tribunal' that the 'Corporate Debtor', had preferred IA No. 1338 of 2022 and IA No. 1339 of 2022, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' in CP (IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, for 'Recall of the Order dated 10.11.2022' and for 'setting asi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptioned 'Application'. Hence, the 'Petitioner / Corporate Debtor', had filed IA No. 1338 of 2022 in main CP (IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, seeking for 'Recall of the Order dated 10.11.2022', and for 'allowing', the said Application'. 77. The 'Petitioner / Corporate Debtor', in IA No. 1339 of 2022 in CP (IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, had sought a 'Relief', for 'setting aside the 'Ex-parte Order dated 04.11.2022', passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority'. 78. According to the Appellant, the aforesaid IA No. 1338 of 2022 and IA No. 1339 of 2022, were numbered on 15.11.2022, by the 'Adjudicating Authority', the 'Adjudicating Authority', had not taken up the said 'Applications', and stated that they would be listed, in their own course and proceeded to pass 'Final Order', in the main CP (IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022. 79. On behalf of the Appellant, it is contended that a 'Private Notice', issued by the '1st Respondent / Bank', is not in consonance with Rule 38 (1) of NCLT Rules, 2016, and further this would not amount to 'sufficient compliance' of Rule 37 of NCLT Rules, 2016. 80. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that Rule 38 (1) of NCLT Rules, 2016, 'any notice o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t', is not 'fulfilling the requirement of Rule 37 and 38 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. 84. While, coming out with a plea, on behalf of the Appellant, it is forcefully pointed out that a 'Private Notice', issued by the 'Party', cannot be equated with that of a 'Notice', issued by the 'Tribunal', and further that the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal'), had not issued any 'Notice', in terms of Rule 37 of NCLT Rules, 2016. However, the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal'), on 21.10.2022, during 'Hearing' of CP(IB) No. 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, had observed the following: "Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor present. We direct the Financial Creditor to serve notice to Corporate Debtor by Speed Post and e-mail within five days from today and to be filed proof of service before next hearing date. Meanwhile, the counter if any, by the Corporate Debtor to file within two weeks. The matter is adjourned to 04.11.2022." 85. Conversely, it is the contention of the 1st Respondent / Bank that in compliance with the Rule 4 (3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the '1st Respondent / Bank', had sent a cop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Authority) Rules, 2016, and Rule 4 (1) to (3) of the said Rules, reads as under: 4. "Application by financial creditor.- (1) A financial creditor, either by itself or jointly, shall make an application for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor under section 7 of the Code in Form 1, accompanied with documents and records required therein and as specified in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. (2) Where the applicant under sub-rule (1) is an assignee or transferee of a financial contract, the application shall be accompanied with a copy of the assignment or transfer agreement and other relevant documentation to demonstrate the assignment or transfer. (3) The applicant shall dispatch forthwith, a copy of the application filed with the Adjudicating Authority, by registered post or speed post to the registered office of the corporate debtor." 90. By virtue of Rule 4 (3) of the The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the '1st Respondent / Bank', had sent the copy of the 'Application', to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 dated 02.11.2022, which indicates clearly, that the '1st Respondent / Bank', which sent the 'Notice' through 'Speed Post', was delivered to the '2nd Respondent / M/s. Gayatri Projects Ltd.' ('Corporate Debtor') vide Consignment No. EN422127021IN. The said 'Memo', indicates that the copy of Email dated 25.10.2022, copy of 'Notice' dated 25.10.2022, Postal Receipt dated 31.10.2022 and the Post Track Reports were mentioned in the 'Memo' dated 02.11.2022, filed by the '1st Respondent / Bank', through its Learned Counsel. Therefore, it cannot be said that the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor', had not received the 'Notice', from the '1st Respondent / Bank', through 'Official Email Address' of the 'Corporate Debtor' / 'Company', available in the 'Company Master Data', and further that the 'Contra Plea', taken on behalf of the 'Appellant', is 'not acceded to', by this 'Tribunal'. 94. Coming to the 'Plea', taken on behalf of the 'Appellant' that a cumulative reading of Rule 38 (2) (c) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and Rule 38 (3) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, a 'Party', can serve a 'Notice', by himself, where a 'Notice', was issued by the 'Tribunal', in the relevant 'Form', and not a 'Priv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Thirty days' time ordinarily must be held to be sufficient for service of notice. In fact when the service of notice is sought to be effected by Speed Post, ordinarily the service takes place within a few days. Even under Order V, Rule 9(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, summons is presumed to be served if it does not come back within thirty days. In a situation of this nature, there was no occasion for the Court to hold that service of notice could not be effected within a period of thirty days. 22. Presumption of service, under the statute, would arise not only when it is sent by registered post in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act but such a presumption may be raised also under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Even when a notice is received back with an endo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used on the 'Defendant', and further that, the 'Service', was found sufficient'. 100. In the instant case, the main CP (IB) / 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022, came up for 'Hearing', on 04.11.2022, (after the first hearing date on 21.10.2022), before the 'Adjudicating Authority', ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad), there was 'no appearance', on the side of the '2nd Respondent / M/s. Gayatri Projects Ltd.' ('Corporate Debtor'), and hence, the '2nd Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', was set 'Ex-parte'. 101. In reality, the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('NCLT', Hyderabad Bench - II, Hyderabad) in CP (IB) / 308 / 7 / HDB / 2022 on 04.11.2022, had passed the following 'Order': "Mr. P. Ravicharan, Learned Counsel for Financial Creditor appeared via video conference. Proof of service filed. As per the same, item delivered to the Corporate Debtor at the address mentioned on 26.10.2022. An email copy has also been filed wherein also Corporate Debtor has been served. Corporate Debtor called absent. Service held sufficient. Corporate Debtor set ex-parte. For hearing, list the matter on 10.11.2022." 102. Admittedly, the 'Adjudicating Authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ode, r/w Rule 4 of the IB (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 in Form I), under Part IV ('Particulars of Financial Debt'), had 'Claimed' a sum of Rs.242,33,00,269/- (Rupees Two Hundred Forty Two Crores Thirty Three Lakhs Two Hundred and Sixty Nine only), being the 'Default Amount', as on 30.09.2022. 108. Admittedly, the '1st Respondent / Bank', had given 'numerous Term Loans' (including Short Term Loans, Equipment Loans, Demand Loans, ECB Loans and Working Capital Facilities) to the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor', from time to time and the 'Account', was classified as 'Non Performing Asset', on 30.04.2022. 109. The Plea of the 1st Respondent /Bank, before this 'Tribunal' is that the '1st Respondent / Bank', had issued the 'Statutory Notice' (under Rule 4 (3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, to the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor' on 17.10.2022, and the same was delivered on 18.10.2022, which fact was not pointed out by the 'Appellant'. No wonder, the 'compliance of Statutory Rule requirement (made by the 'Central Government'), to be followed by a 'Stakeholder' / 'Litigant', has the 'Force of Law', in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process'. 117. Although, the 'NCLT Rules, 2016', is made by the Central Government, as per 'powers', showered by Section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), for matters to be dealt with under the Companies Act, 2013, the 'Adjudicating Authority', as per Section 5 (1) of the I & B Code, 2016, is the 'National Company Law Tribunal', constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013, there is no 'embargo' in 'Law', upon the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal'), to make use of the 'NCLT Rules', 2016, wherever it is found necessary, at the time of dealing with the matters, pertaining to the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process', under the I & B Code, 2016, 118. By virtue of the 'Letter' dated 10.05.2021 on 'Balance Confirmation', as on 31.03.2021, was signed by the 'Managing Director' of the '2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor', addressed to the '1st Respondent / Bank' ('State Bank of India'), in respect of the 'Balances', relating to 'Seven Account Numbers' of the '1st Respondent / Bank' (State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch - 9103). 119. In the Reply of the 'Authorised Signatory' of the '2nd Respondent' / 'Corp....