TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. This is the second round of litigation relating to the said application filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016. Initially, vide order dated 28.07.2022, the application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 was rejected on the grounds that cheque for the financial debt was in the name of Sehrawat Associates Private Limited, who is not the Corporate Debtor. The said order dated 28.07.2022 was set aside by this Tribunal on 31.01.2023 with the following directions: "5. In view of the fact that the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application on mis-reading the bank statement, we in the interest of justice, direct that the Application may be revived before the Adjudicating Authority for consideration in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, order dated 28.07.2022 is set aside. Company Petition No. (IB) - 229(ND)/2022 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority to be heard and decided in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion on merit of the case on either of the parties. The appeal is allowed to the above extent." 3. Subsequently, the Ld. NCLT, vide impugned order dated 10.11.2023 dismissed the applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporate debtor for the said default occurring during the said period. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any default committed under the said sections before 25th March, 2020." 24. On 24th September, 2020 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(31 of 2016) [as inserted by section 2 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2020 (17 of 2020)], the Central Government hereby notifies further period of three months from the 25th September, 2020 for the purposes of the said section i.e Section 10A of IBC. 25. Again on 22nd December, 2020 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), the Central government hereby notifies further period of three months from the 25th December, 2020, for the purposes of the said section. 26. The claim of the Applicant that the date of default is 22.09.2021 does not appear to be correct. As explained above, the date of default is 21.10.2020 which is the date relied on by the Applicant in his Legal Notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not any obligation of repayment. 3. The payment of INR 3,30,00,000/- vide Chegue No. 000029 dated 21 July 2020 made by your client was towards interest on loan given by our Client to Sehrawat Associates Private Limited also by Telemart Communication India Pvt Ltd (amalgamated into Our Client) to Sparkle Breweries Pvt Ltd. 4. Sehrawat Associates Pvt Ltd. and Sparkle Breweries Pvt Ltd are entities owned, controlled and managed by your client. 5. Telemart Communication India Pvt Ltd had granted a loan of INR 95,00,000/- to Sehrawat Associates Pvt Ltd between 01 April 2009 to 18 January 2010 and the said loan was confirmed by Sehrawat Associates Pvt Ltd from time to time. 6. Our Client had granted loan of INR 50.00,000/- to Sparkle Breweries Pvt Ltd on 28 April 2012. 7. The loan to Sehrawat Associates Pvt Ltd and Sparkle Breweries Pvt Ltd were interest bearing @ 12% per annum quarterly rest and the total outstanding interest as on 21 July 2020 by the said two entities (Sehrawat Associates Pvt Ltd and Sparkle Breweries Pvt Lid) was INR 3,39,000. The said entities are entities of your client. (sic: the actual figure is 3,39,09,369). 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruption vide judgment dated 27.01.2017 by the Court of Special Judge (P.C. Act) (CBI), New Delhi. vi. The Corporate Debtor (earlier known as Telemart Communication (I) Pvt. Ltd.) had granted a loan of INR 95 lacs to Sehrawat Associates Pvt. Ltd., an entity controlled and managed by the petitioner. vii. The said loan was granted from the period 2009 to 2010. In the year 2012, a loan of Rs. 50 lacs was granted to Sparkle Breweries Pvt. Ltd. which is also owned and controlled by the Petitioner/Appellant herein. viii. The Sehrawat Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Sparkle Breweries Pvt. Ltd. have acknowledged the loans on several occasions. The outstanding interest as on 21.07.2022 payable by the said 2 entities was Rs. 3,39,09,369/-. ix. The amount of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- which is now sought to be alleged as a loan was actually repayment of interest due and payable by Sehrawat Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Sparkle Breweries Pvt. Ltd. The said amount was duly accounted for in the financial statements of the Corporate Debtor as income. 8. While noting rival claims, the Ld. NCLT, vide order dated 10.11.2023 had dismissed the application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even correspondence regarding it. There is no correspondence to indicate that any extension of time was sought by the Corporate Debtor or was granted by the Appellant regarding repayment of loan. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that inadvertent error in the legal demand notice should not be held against the Appellant and cited the judgment in the case of "Rajendra Bhai Panchal v. Jay Manak Steels Through its Sole Proprietor & Anr., (2020) SCC OnLine NCLAT 730. The relevant para nos. 41 and 42 of the said judgment are reproduced below: "41. It is to be remembered that a mistake in a "Demand Notice does not necessarily mean that it is defective. If a 'Corporate Debtor' wants to question the validity of the demand it is for it to show that the prejudice was suffered by it as a result of defect. 42. If there is a mistake in the demand but the creditor is clearly owed the statutory minimum figure or more, the fact that the debt is mis stated may not automatically invalidate the demand as per decision Cardiff Preserved Coal & Coke Co. v. Norton, 36 L Ch 451. Further, the Court will take into account whether any injustice was caused to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan given by him to the Corporate Debtor, whereas the version of the Corporate Debtor is that the said amount is repayment of interest due on loans given earlier by the Corporate Debtor to the companies controlled by the Appellant herein. The said receipt has been recognised as income by the Corporate Debtor in its books of accounts. However, since the Ld. NCLT has dismissed the application under Section 7 of the IBC on the ground that the date of default claimed by the Appellant is in the exclusion period prescribed under Section 10A of the IBC, 2016 we restrict our examination at this stage only to the issue as to whether the date of default falls under the prohibited period prescribed under Section 10A of the IBC and whether on that ground the application under Section 7 of the IBC was rightly dismissed by the Ld. NCLT. 17. Admittedly, as per Form 3, especially, Part-IV of the application under Section 7 of the IBC filed with the Ld. NCLT, the appellant has stated that the loan amount was given on 21.07.2020 for a period of three months and accordingly date from which debt fall due is 22.10.2020, reflected at page 75 of the Appeal Paper Book. It is the submission of the app....