Gaurav Bhargava & Ors vs Noble Cooperative Bank Ltd

Gaurav Bhargava & Ors. ...Appellants

Vs.

Noble Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah with Ms. Rahika Gupta, Advocates

For Respondents:- Mr. Naveen Sharma with Ms. Swati B. Sharma, Advocate

ORDER

17.07.2018─ The Respondent M/s Noble Cooperative Bank Ltd.-

('financial creditor') filed an application under Section 7 for initiation of

corporate insolvency resolution process against M/s Shivalika Developers

Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The case was admitted, order of moratorium

was passed and Resolution Professional has been appointed with certain

directions.

2. The appellants, shareholders of the Corporate Debtor has challenged

the order of admission dated 12th February 2018.

3. The case of the appellants is that the 'Corporate Debtor' was allotted

a plot in Sector 63, NOIDA on 9th June 2016 for development. It sought for

grant of loan from the respondent bank on 31st March 2009. The credit

facility in terms of OD limit was for Rs. 30 Lakhs and a General Term Loan

Agreement was taken on 31st March 2009. As per sanctioned order, the Corporate Debtor was required to purchase shares in the Respondent Co-

operative Bank for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and one Mr. Mahim Mittal and the

Guarantor Ms. Ranjeeta Mittal were also required to purchase certain

shares. The management of the company (Corporate Debtor) changed

subsequently on 16th October 2009.

4. Further case of the appellants is that the erstwhile Directors namely

Mr. Asit Mittal and Mr. Mahim Mittial, actually took loan, and therefore they

resigned from the company. Even after that resignation they dealt with the

bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, according to appellants

whatever the loan was taken subsequently were so taken by Mr. Asit Mittal

and Mr. Mahim Mittal. Therefore, the 'Corporate Debtor', cannot be treated

to have taken loan.

5. It is further submitted that no notice was served on 'Corporate Debtor'

before admission of the application under Section 7.

6. It is not in dispute that loan was obtained from the bank (financial

creditor) on behalf of the 'Corporate Debtor'. Therefore, the ground taken by

the appellants that the loans were taken by Mr. Asit Mittal and Mr. Mahim

Mittal as their personal loan cannot be accepted. It is also not in dispute that

the loan account was maintained in the name of Corporate Debtor in which

the amount was credited. For the said reason, we hold that the application

under Section 7 against the Corporate Debtor was maintainable.

7. Even if we presume that no notice was served on secured Corporate

Debtor before admission of the application under Section 7, as the remand

of the case will be a mere formality because even after remand the application is to be admitted, we are not interfering with the impugned order.

There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) sm/uk