Amit Katyal vs Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain

In the matter of: Sh. Amit Katyal ....Appellant Vs. Ajay Kumar Jain, ...Respondents Resolution Professional & Anr. For Appellant Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Mr. Dhruv Pande, Advocates. For Respondents

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

30.07.2024: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2024 admitting

Section 95 application against the Appellant. Counsel for the Appellant

challenging the order submits that there was OTS entered with Union Bank of

India on 30.11.2022 with the principal borrower for an amount of Rs.95 Crores

was to be paid by 29.02.2024. In view of the OTS, the application under

Section 95 ought not to have been admitted. Resolution Professional has also

made recommendations which has been extracted in paragraph 9 of the order.

It is submitted that subsequently another letter was issued by the Union Bank

of India on 23.06.2023 that delayed payments be made with the interest. He

submits that in view of the aforesaid letter, OTS is still subsisting and Section

95 application ought not to have been admitted. 2

3. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant

and perused the record.

4. Recommendations of the Resolution Professional in paragraph 9 of the

order is as follows:-

"9. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL ARE AS UNDER:

The Resolution Professional vide IA-2515/2022 dated 28.05.2022 has filed its report before this Adjudicating Authority. The Recommendations of the Resolution Professional are as under:

a. That the One Time Settlement (OTS) between the Principal Borrower/CD has been initiated and payment has also been made by the CD against proposed OTS as claimed by the Personal Guarantor. However, the Applicant/Union Bank of India has not confirmed the RP about the present status of the loan qua payment against the OTS.

b. That if the OTS has been finalized and accepted by the Bank, then the present application of the bank be rejected. However, if the OTS has been rejected by the Bank, then the present application of the bank be accepted."

5. The Resolution Professional has submitted that the OTS has been

finalized, however, the Bank has not given any confirmation about the present

status of the OTS. In the appeal filed by the Appellant, Appellant itself

contended that out of Rs.97 Crore, Rs.57 Crore have been paid as against the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1460 of 2024 3

OTS. From the OTS dated 30.11.2022, the entire payment was to be made on

29.02.2024 which date is already over and according to the Appellant himself,

he could only pay Rs.57 Crores and odd.

6. The letter on which the Appellant has relied is 23.06.2023 was issued

at the time when the last date of payment has not yet arrived and bank

permitted delayed payments with interest to which no exception can be taken.

We do not find any error in admitting Section 95 application. It is, however, to

be noted that at the time of final Resolution Plan, all liabilities which have

already been discharged shall be taken into consideration against the

guarantor. It shall always be open for the Bank to bring up-to-date status of

the OTS in the proceeding against the principal guarantor.

7. Subject to the above observations, we dismiss the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1460 of 2024