Alchemist Asset Reconstruction ... vs Manoj Garg Resolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 711 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Penal interest charged on excess drawing or temporary overdraft before the assignment of a debt is a component of the debt that is not covered by the assignment, and the assignee cannot claim it against the corporate debtor where it has not crystallised as a debt in the assignee's hands.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus Manoj Garg (Resolution Professional, Sunar Jewals Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Manoj Garg, Advocate
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
26.08.2020 The Appellant, claiming to be lawful assignee of the
debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to Karnataka Bank Limited is aggrieved of
upholding of rejection of its claim to the extent of charging penal interest
against the Corporate Debtor by the Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Principal Bench in terms of impugned
order dated 4th March, 2020 which is being assailed on the ground that the
penal interest was chargeable at the rate of 3% as per the sanction letter on
the excess drawings.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the Appellant we find that the
Resolution Professional has already admitted claim of Appellant for an
amount of Rs. 65,81,74,830/- and rejected the remaining part of the claim
which related to penal interest, expenses incurred and the difference of
amount paid by the Corporate Debtor. It appears that the penal interest at 2
3% was leviable on excess drawing/temporary overdraft limit before
assignment of debt to the Appellant (Assignee) and charging of such penal
interest against the Corporate Debtor after assignment of debt would be a
component of debt not covered by the assignment. Besides it is not a
crystallised debt in the hands of the Appellant (Assignee). Viewed in this
context, the claim cannot be said to have been arbitrarily rejected.
3. There being no legal infirmity in the order of the Adjudicating Authority,
we decline to interfere. The appeal is dismissed at the very threshold stage.
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Acting Chairperson
[ Justice Anant Bijay Singh ] Member (Judicial)
[ V.P. Singh ] Member (Technical)
/ns/gc/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insol vency) No. 711 of 2020
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free