2024 (12) TMI 1313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Order dated 30.09.2024, by which an Application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s. Monotona Tyres Limited (Corporate Debtor) has been allowed and Slump Sale Agreement dated 05.05.2018, entered into between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant, has been set aside with direction to the Appellant to return all the assets acquired by it under the Slump Sale Agreement to the RP of the Corporate Debtor forthwith, with a liberty to file appropriate claim with the RP in respect of its debts, if any, including the repayment of the loan granted by it to the State Bank of India (SBI) on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the Corporate Debtor had obtained financial assistance in the form of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ebtor owed Rs.53.50 Crores to the Appellant for which it agreed to sell its entire business, including the factory, land, machinery, and all other assets for a consideration of Rs. 52.50 Crores and in this regard, entered into a Slump Sale Agreement dated 05.05.2018. It is also alleged that an Affidavit in this regard was also filed by the Corporate Debtor in the High Court of Bombay in Chamber Summons No. 873/2018 in Execution Application No. 1765/2018 (`Capital First Ltd.' Vs. `Monotona Tyres Ltd.'). 5. However, on 30.11.2018, Manoj Kumar Mishra was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and later on confirmed as the RP on 05.02.2019. 6. After taking over the control of the Corporate Debtor, the RP found that the Slump ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or document establishing the existence of the unsecured loan has been placed on record. The findings in this regard are reproduced in Paragraphs 25 & 26 of the Impugned Order, which are reproduced as under: "25. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid contentions raised by the Counsel for the Respondent but have found the same to be untenable. Firstly, it sounds quite strange that if the value of the property in question is just about Rs. 12 crores, as assessed by the State Bank of India at the time of sanctioning the OTS scheme, why on earth the Respondent would buy it for a sum of Rs. 52.50 crores. It also appears to be quite queer as to how the Respondent has been privy to the forensic audit report, which is a confidential....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... creditors of the Corporate Debtor." 10. Although Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that the amount of Rs. 42.86 Crores was an unsecured loan towards the Corporate Debtor, but there is no documentary evidence that the Corporate Debtor has availed such a huge loan from the Appellant. The Tribunal has also categorically observed that there was no registered Sale/Conveyance Deed, executed between the Parties of the Immovable Property, which as per Section 17 of the Registration Act is a mandatory condition as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of `Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. `State of Haryana & Anr.', in Special Leave Petition (C) No.13917 OF 2009, in which it has been held that an Immovable Pr....