TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.1 herein). Aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2024 admitting Section 7 Application and appointing Respondent No.2 as Resolution Professional ("RP") this Appeal has been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are: (i) The Corporate Debtor ("CD") - M/s Agson Global Private Limited obtained various Financial Facilities through a Joint Consortium of Lenders. The Joint Consortium Agreement was executed on 25.10.2017. The Indian Bank has sanctioned Term Loan of working capitals limit in Import and Processing and Distributions Division of Rs.29.40 crores (Fund based Rs.15.40 crores and non-fund based Rs.14 crores). Under the Consortium, the IOB was the lead Bank. The CD has executed various security documents to ensure the repayment of the loan. Additional loans were also sanctioned. (ii) On failure to abide by the terms of sanction by the CD, the Indian Bank issued a Legal Notice dated 09.01.2023 to the CD. Demand Notice under Section 13(2) was also issued on 25.04.2023 and an OA was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. (iii) The Indian Bank filed an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Interim Order to continue." 4. The Appellant filed IA No.1713 of 2025 dated 17.02.2025 seeking impleadment of NARCL as necessary party in the Appeal. IA No.1713 of 2025 is allowed and NARCL is added to the Memo of Parties as Respondent No.4. Memo of Appeal is accordingly amended. 5. During the course of the hearing of the Appeal, various affidavits were filed by the Appellant for bringing on record details of various JLM Meetings held and the other steps. An affidavit dated 19.03.2025 was filed by the Appellant, bringing on record the debt resolution proposal dated 19.02.2025. The affidavit pleaded that NARCL has been assigned the debt for settlement of dues, which proposal was not accepted and communication dated 15.03.2025 was issued, refusing to accept the proposal. An Application has been filed by the Appellant seeking leave to place on record additional documents, which also included revised debt resolution proposal dated 05.04.2025. The Appeal was heard on 17.03.2025, when learned Counsel for Indian Bank informed that settlement proposal submitted by the Appellant has not been accepted by NARCL, who is assignee of the debt and the Appeal needs to be heard on merits. Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bservation are still relevant. It is submitted that the Appellant is a running Company, where Promoters have infused funds for carrying out its business and assignment of debt in favour of NARCL, which was completed on 30.12.2024 and various offers submitted by the Appellant, have not been accepted. It is submitted that on 19.02.2025, the Appellant has given offer of Rs.490 crores, which offer, without any discussion, rejected by NARCL and further another revised offer was given on 05.04.2025 for Rs.530 crores, which without any valid reasons, is not being considered by the NARCL. The spirit of the IBC is resolution and not the corporate death of the CD. This Tribunal may direct the Respondents to consider the Appellant's offer of Rs.530 crores for settlement of dues and direct that no CoC be constituted till further orders. 9. Shri Gopal Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the NARCL refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Indian Bank was one of the Member of the Consortium and was fully entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 7 for default committed by the Appellant. The restructuring proposal submitted by the Appellant, could not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate debtor by the Applicant herein before us, being member of consortium was Rs. 29.40 Cr. (Fund based Rs. 15.40 Cr. and Non-Fund based Rs.14 Cr.). Additionally, the Applicant also extended the credit facility by issuing LC. In brief the cash credit facility extended by the Applicant to the corporate debtor was Rs. 24.60 Cr. and the LC facility was Rs. 24.50 Cr. The details of debt and default have been mentioned in Part-IV of the application which reads thus : - S. NO PARTICULARS OF FINANCIAL DEBT 1. TOTAT AMOUNT OF DEBT GRANTED DATE(S) OF DISBURSEMENT 1. Facilities sanctioned vide Sanction Letter Dated 01.02.2018 Term Loan of Rs.29.40 cr. 2. Enhancement of Limits dated 24.06.2019. Facility: Term Loan of Rs.33.60 Cr as to the existing limit of Rs.27.00 Cr. 3. Review cum Enhancement of existing working Capital Limit datcd29.10.2019. Facility: Term Loan of Rs. 48.60 Cr as to the existing limit of Rs. 33.60 Cr 2 AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEFAULT OCCURRED (ATTACH THE WORKINGS FOR COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT AND DAYS OF DEFAULT IN TABULAR FORM) Total amount due as on 10.08.2023: Rs.51,07,40,896 [44,90,10,960 (Principal) + 6,17,29,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requested all the Member banks to confirm Their stand on providing the mandate in favour of transferring the account to NARCL or non-approval as the case may be. All the Banks then one by one conveyed their stand on transferring the account to NARCL. The details of which is as annexed below : Bank Views on In-principle Transfer of Account to NARCL IOB *Agreeable PNB *Agreeable Union Bank of India *Agreeable to go with majority * There should be Swiss Challenge BOI *Agreeable to go with the lead bank UCO Bank *Agreeable and recommended to HO, awaiting final approval Canara Bank *Agreeable SBI * Agreeable Central Bank of India *Agreeable BOB * Agreeable to go with the majority Indian Bank * Agreeable * Alternate recovery process by the bank shall proceed IDBI Bank *Agreeable All the member banks unanimously give their mandate to lead bank for in¬ principle transferring the account to NARCL." 13. It is relevant to notice the following part of the above JLM Meeting: "Indian Bank, DGM informed that they had a crucial hearing on the next day in NCLT to which it was replied that all the banks are independent to follow recovery measure as per their own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is relevant to notice the proposal, which has been given by the Appellant and the communication sent by the Bank refusing to accept, to find out as to whether the Bank is acting arbitrarily or against the interest of the CD, in not accepting the reasonable proposal. The proposal dated 19.02.2025 itself indicate that payable debt is Rs.2,319 crores. The Appellant itself has carried out a bifurcation to the effect that Rs.490 crores is sustainable debt. The total repayment schedule as proposed in the proposal dated 19.02.2025 is as follows: "Based on the above repayment schedule is proposed as under for the sustainable debt : Rs Cr Tranche/ FY 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total Upfront - Promoter 5.0 5.0 Tranche I - Insurance Claim 175.0 175.0 Tranche II - Business CF 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 110.0 Tranche III - Investor 200.0 200.0 Total Debt Repayment 180.0 20.0 220.0 35.0 35.0 490.0 16. Now, we come to the communication which was issued to the Appellant on 15.03.2025, which was sent by the India Debt Resolution Company Ltd. on behalf of the NARCL.....