Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan Director ... vs Bank Of India & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1751 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A financial creditor's authorisation to file an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is validly established where a board resolution authorises officers of a specified rank to sign and execute such applications before the NCLT, and an application signed by an officer within that rank is therefore not vitiated for want of authority; a subsequently amended application, signed by an officer authorised at the time of signing, does not suffer from any infirmity. Where a term loan is declared a non-performing asset, the date of default for limitation purposes is taken as no earlier than ninety days before the NPA declaration; a bank's demand letter asking for an overdue amount to be deposited does not by itself fix the date of default. Where the corporate debtor has submitted one-time settlement proposals which the financial creditor has approved and which the debtor then failed to honour, and the Section 7 application is filed within three years of the date of default as calculated, the application is not barred by limitation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan Director (Power Suspended) Of Westface Hospitality ....Appellant and Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents
For Appellant Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Mr. Akash Srivastava, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Karan Gandhi, Mr. Sikhar Tiwari, Ms. Vidhika Kapoor, Advocates for RP Mr. Ashish Verma, Mr. Nikhil Thakur, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.01.2025: Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel
appearing for the Respondents.
2. This Appeal has been filed by Suspended Director of the Corporate
Debtor challenging the order dated 05.04.2024 by which order Section 7
application filed by Bank of India has been admitted. The Adjudicating
Authority returned finding of debt and default and on the said finding has
admitted Section 7 application.
3. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that there was
no competent authorization to one Mr. Dhawan who had initially filed Section
7 application on 28.06.2019. He further submits that the date of default in the 2
present case was 29.08.2012 on which date Bank of India has issued a letter
regarding term loan account and the application filed by Bank of India was
barred by time. It is submitted that admittedly the first OTS proposal as was
noticed by the Adjudicating Authority was only in December 2015 i.e. beyond
three years from the date of default.
4. Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of the Counsel for
the Appellant contends that the board has already passed resolution on
27.06.2019 to authorize all the officers in the rank of Assistant General
Managers and Deputy General Managers to sign/ execute applications,
appeals, vakalatnama before NCLTs, NCLATs, High Court and Supreme Court
and in view of the said resolution, Mr. Dhawan who has initially filed a
proceeding was fully competent. It is submitted that subsequently fresh form
was filed which was signed by another official who was fully authorized and
competent and there is no lack of authorization of the proceedings.
5. Coming to the submission of the Appellant that application is barred by
time, Counsel for the Respondent submits that the account of the corporate
debtor was declared NPA on 31.07.2013 and default has to be pegged 90 days
which shall be 30.04.2013 and the OTS proposal which was given in December
2015 is within three years from the said date and hence, application cannot
be said to be barred by time. He further submits that continuously OTS
proposal was given which was also approved by the financial creditor but
default was committed by the corporate debtor in complying the OTS proposal.
It is submitted that the application was well within time.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1751 of 2024 3
6. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. Coming to the first submission of the Appellant that proceedings was by
unauthorized person, on the paper-book at page 480, a Circular of the Bank
of India has been brought on record which was issued on 18.07.2019. In
paragraph 3 of the said Circular, following was stated:-
"3. In the above context our Board has approved in its meeting held on 27.06.2019 to authorize all officials of the rank of Assistant General Managers and Deputy General Managers to sign execute Applications, Appeals, Vakalatnama, before NCLTS, NCLATS, High Court, and Supreme Court under IBC 2016. All other ancillary Pleadings, Miscellaneous applications,, Affidavits, Written statements etc can be signed \ executed by the dealing officials of Branch as being the practice in other court cases. The Certified copy of Board Resolution is attached as Annexure 1. The copy of the Board Resolution, duly attested by Zonal Manager/General Manager can be produced before NCLT, NCLAT, High Court & Supreme Court as & when required."
8. The above indicate that Board on 27.06.2019 has authorized all the
officers in the rank of Assistant General Managers and Deputy General
Managers to sign/ execute applications, appeals, vakalatnama before NCLTs,
NCLATs, High Court and Supreme Court, hence, the application under Section
7 which was filed by Assistant General Manager on 28.06.2019 cannot be said
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1751 of 2024 4
to be without a proper authorization. Hence, we do not find any substance in
the submission of the Appellant that application was not filed by authorized
person. Further after the liberty was granted by the Adjudicating Authority,
the form was amended with regard to date of default which form was signed
by officials who are authorized at relevant time when form was signed which
also does not suffer from any infirmity.
9. Now coming to the submission of the Appellant that the application was
barred by time. Since the date of default has to be treated to be 29.08.2012,
counsel for the Appellant has referred to the letter dated 29.08.2012 issued
by the Bank of India. The said letter reads as follows:-
"Bank of India The Bank That Cares
e-mail: Janpath.New Delhi@ bankofindia.co.in JANPATH Branch, Fax: 011-2332099 66, Janpath.
Telephones: 23320986(AGM), 28844059(CM). New Delhi-110001 28844060, 23355521
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref No: JP/ADV/UCV/110 Date: 29-08-2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S West Face Hospitality And Management Pvt Ltd, E-1/7, 2nd Floor, East Patel Nagar, NEW DELHI-110008
Dear Sir,
RE: Your Term Loan account with us Overdrawn position of your account
We write to inform that as per terms of sanction your term loan of Rs1500 lacs is repayable in 84 monthly instalments (first twelve monthly instalments of Rs5 lacs each and next 72 monthly
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1751 of 2024 5
instalments of Rs20 lacs each) commenced from the month of November, 2010 and interest is repayable as & when applied.
We observe that repayments of monthly interest/instalments in your term loan account are not being serviced in time. As per repayment schedule the outstanding balance in your account should have been Rs1240 lacs whereas the present outstanding in your account is Rs1433.92 lacs; hence your account is overdrawn by Rs193.92 lacs.
We, therefore, request you to please deposit the overdue amount immediately and regularize your account.
Thanking You,
Yours faithfully..
CHIEF MANAGER"
10. The aforesaid letter was a letter issued by the Bank asking the Corporate
Debtor to deposit overdue amount immediately and regularize the account. On
the record NPA was declared only on 31.07.2013 hence, the default can at best
be three months before NPA i.e. 30.04.2013. The finding has been returned by
the Adjudicating Authority that OTS was given by the Appellant from
December 2015 to April 2018, hence, the OTS proposal which was given by
the Appellant was within three years from the date of default as is claimed by
the Financial Creditor. We, thus, are also not satisfied that the application was
barred by time and ought not to have been admitted. Appellant has given OTS
proposal which was also approved by the financial creditor, however, corporate
debtor failed on the terms of the OTS which has been noticed by the
Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 4 (B). OTS proposal from December 2015
to April 2018 were given and the application was filed by the financial creditor
in the year 2019 which cannot be said to be beyond time. We, thus, do not
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1751 of 2024 6
find any substance in any of the submissions of the Appellant. We find no
merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1751 of 2024
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