NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 5(B) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTION 2,4 OF THE BANKERS' BOOKS EVIDENCE ACT, 1891, RULE 4, 4(3)OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016 AND SECTION 4, 7, 7(1), 7(2), 7(5), 8, 8(1), 8(2), 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31(1), 33, 238 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016


Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. Baldeo Metals Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0042

NCLT allowed the petition filed by the applicant under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), praying for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor on grounds of its inability to liquidate its financial debt. While allowing the petition NCLT held that when we shall consider the case in hand and the aforesaid decision and the provision then we find that in this case in hand, it is admitted fact that respondent had entered into an agreement and which is duly sanctioned by the applicant vide sanctioned letter dated 22.02.2018 and Channel Finance Facility was executed and modified on 09.03.2018 & 06.07.2018 and in that agreement, the name and address of the sellers is mentioned i.e. Vedanta and Hindalco and payment was directly made to the Vedanta and Hindalco in lieu of goods supplied to the respondent. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that payment has not been made directly to him is not liable to be accepted rather direction was given in Channel Finance Agreement. Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that legal notice as well as recall of loan notice was also sent to the respondent, under such circumstances, we have no option but to reject the contention of the respondent and we accept the contention of the applicant that loan was duly sanctioned and disbursed but Debt has not be repaid and since there is default and application filed by the applicant is complete and applicant also proposed the name of the IRP and consent of the IRP is also enclosed at page 198-199 and there is no disciplinary proceeding is pending against him and the defaulted amount is more than Rs.1,00,000/- is being the minimum threshold limit fixed under U/S 4 of IBC, 2016. Under such circumstances this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to admit this petition and initiate CIRP against the respondent. Accordingly, this petition is admitted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 9, 13(1)(B), 13(1)(C), 14, 14(1), 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Maloo Bhatt And Co. Vs. Pet Metal Private Limited, (2020) 08 NCLT CK 0024 NCLT allowed the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor for the amount of debt related to invoice raised for audit fees and other professional work. While allowing the appeal NCLT held that the amount of debt is more than Rs. 1 lacs which is not barred by law of limitation. The said amount has not been paid and no plausible defence has been put forward by Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has also provided MCA Data of the Corporate Debtor. The application is otherwise complete and defect free. It is also noted that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the IRP whose consent is on record. Hence, he can be appointed to conduct Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Accordingly, we admit this application and order.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 133, 230, 231, 232 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND RULE 3, 3(2) OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016

Image
Kalyankari Suppliers Private Limited And Ors Vs. Shiv Coal Benification And Power Private Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0015 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 in relation to Scheme of Amalgamation (For brevity "Scheme") proposed between the Applicants. While allowing the application NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, Partners, secured and unsecured creditors or dispensing the same.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 8(1), 8(2), 9, 9(5)(1), 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Centuary Road Transport Pvt. Ltd Vs. Tyson Retail Services Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0044 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the IB Code for initiation of the CIRP of Corporate Debtor.   While allowing the application NCLT held that in view of Section 8, after the receiving of the demand notice delivered under Section 8(1) of the IB Code the Corporate Debtor is required to send the reply to demand notice or raised the pre-existing dispute or show the documents regarding the payment of the unpaid debt but here as we noticed that the Corporate Debtor has neither raised the pre-existing dispute nor filed any document to show that the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. If we shall consider the case in hand in the light of aforesaid provision then we find that herein the case in hand neither pre-existing dispute is raised nor payment of the unpaid Operation Debt is made, the application is complete and the ...
Read more