TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'IBC') by the Appellant who is aggrieved by the Order dated 14.03.2022 (hereinafter called the Impugned Order) passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) in CP (IB) No. 1567/ KB/ 2019. 2. The Appellant company, which claims to be a financial creditor has assailed the Impugned Order by which the Adjudicating Authority has admitted Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor- Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund (in short 'SASF') against the 'Corporate Debtor'- IC Textiles Limited. 3. The Appellant's case is that he is a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor, who is assignee of the debts of IFCI owed to the corporate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the Impugned Order, we decided to hear this appeal. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the financial creditor- SASF has stated an exorbitant debt amount of Rs. 39,30,000,000 (Thirty Nine Crores and Thirty Lakhs Only), in Part IV of the Section 7 application in Form-1, whereas in reality there was an OTS entered into between the corporate debtor and SASF, and in pursuance of this OTS a substantial amount was paid by the corporate debtor to the financial creditor-SASF and only an amount of Rs. 88.75 Lakhs remained due and payable to the financial creditor-SASF. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that the Impugned Order in paragraph 56 notes that the Applicant/SASF has claimed of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Order has been passed and the Appellant appears to be acting as a front for the promoters of the corporate debtor. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/ SASF has also submitted that the Section 7 application is not barred by limitation and the Adjudicating Authority has categorically dealt with the aspect of limitation in paragraphs 48 to 57 of the Impugned Order, and held that the application was well within limitation. He has referred to the balance sheets of the corporate debtor for FY-2003-04, 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2018-19 and the prosecution of the BIFR case by the corporate debtor between the period 24.09.2004 to 01.12.2016 to claim that this period is exempted for limitation purposes and the balance sheet entries provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent No. 1: "56. Further, the Applicant claims that as on 1st June 2019, a sum of Rs. 10,82,94,94,335/- is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor. However, the Corporate Debtor has only admitted to its liability to the tune of Rs. 88,75,000/-. In this regard, we would like to mention that even without delving into the calculation of the amount stipulated by the Applicant, it is evident from the admission of the Corporate Debtor that a financial debt under section 5 (8) of the Code is due to the Financial Creditor. The exact amount of such financial debt, in the instant case, becomes immaterial as longas the amount admitted by the Corporate Debtor itself is more than the minimum amount stipulated under Section 4(1) of the Code, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulation 14 relates to determination of the amount of claim. Thus, we see that there is a very clear, unambiguous and rational procedure outlined in the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process For Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016 regarding receipt of claims and thereafter their verification and finalization. 14. In the light of detailed provisions in Chapter IV (Proof of Claims) in the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process For Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016 as explained in the aforementioned paragraphs, the invitation, submission and verification of claims of operational and financial creditors, workmen and employees and other creditors is quite clear. In so far as the facts included in the Section 7 ap....