Dr. K.C. Ramaswami vs Bank Of Baroda And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 05 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a financial creditor's Section 7 application shows that the corporate debtor availed credit facilities, that the debt is outstanding, and that the account was classified as a non-performing asset on the basis of the debtor's default in repayment, the existence of a debt and default is established, and an appeal challenging the admission of the application on the ground of defects in its particulars or in the documentary proof of the loan accounts, without identifying what those defects are, does not succeed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Dr. K. C. Ramaswami ...Appellant
Vs
Bank of Baroda and Anr. ....Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. C. Deivasigamani, Advocate.
For Respondents: Ms. Praveena Gautam and Mr. Jitesh Gupta, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Advocate for Resolution Professional.
ORDER
27.03.2018: The Appellant, Dr. K. C. Ramaswami, Shareholder of Vangal Amman Health Service Limited (Corporate Debtor) has preferred this appeal against order dated 22nd November, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Division Bench, Chennai. By the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority admitted the application preferred by Respondent - Bank of Baroda (Financial Creditor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as 'I&B Code'), passed order of moratorium and appointed Interim Resolution Professional.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that there have been defects in the application preferred by the Respondent (Financial Creditor) as particulars regarding the loan accounts were not shown properly. However, he failed to state as to what were the defects in the application under Section 7 preferred by the Financial Creditor. Next it is submitted that the statement of term loan accounts were not attached to substantiate the amount -2-
due and the copies of the entries are not in accordance with the Bankers Books of Evidence Act, 1891. He further submitted that the total area of the project land was wrongly shown as 165.43 instead of 1894.02 cents. Though it alleged that the copies of the entries were not in accordance with the Bankers Books of Evidence Act, 1891, it has not disputed that the Bank of Baroda (Financial Creditor) enclosed other records of default which were noticed by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. From the record we find that the Corporate Debtor availed three credit facilities from the Respondent of TL Rs.17,00,00,000/-, FITL-I Rs.2,10,00,000/- and FITL-II Rs.4,15,00,000/- total amounting to Rs.23,25,00,000/-. Total outstanding amount as on 31.07.2017 was Rs.15,95,00,000/- when the Corporate Debtor declared NPA-07.09.2013 in December, 2015 quarter. There being the debt and Corporate Debtor having defaulted to pay the amount, we are not inclined to grant any relief in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 05 of 2018
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