Manas Sarkar vs Indian Overseas Bank & Anr

[Arising out of Order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench - I in C.P. (I.B.) No. 1285/KB/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF: Manas Sarkar, Suspended Director of Mahakal Agro Storage and Processing Unit Private Limited, son of Late Nihar Baran Sarkar, working for gain at Room No. 40, 4th Floor, No. 121, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata- 700001. ...Appellant

Versus

1. Indian Overseas Bank, A banking company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at 763, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002 and its Regional office at Ojas Mall, 1st and 2nd Floor, Station Feeder Road, Siliguri, District - Darjeeling, PIN- 734005. ...Respondent No.1

2. Mr. Anil Anchalia, Interim Resolution Professional of Mahakal Agro Storage and Processing Unit Private Limited having its office at 16 B, Robert Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700012. ...Respondent No. 2

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Ashish Choudhury & Mr. Anand Kamal, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Gautam Singhal & Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advocate for R-1.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 1 of 18

(02.05.2023)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal is being filed by the 'Appellant' under Section 61 of

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') order dated

25.05.202 (in short 'impugned order') passed by the 'Adjudicating

Authority' [National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench-I, Kolkata] in

C.P. (I.B.) No. 1285/KB/2019, whereby the 'Adjudicating Authority'

admitted an Application of the Indian Overseas Bank (Respondent No. 1)/

'Financial Creditor' under Section 7 of the Code.

2. Being aggrieved by the 'impugned order' for initiation of the 'Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process' (in short 'CIRP') of the Mahakal Agro Storage

and Processing Unit Private Limited / 'Corporate Debtor', Mr. Manas Sarkar,

Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor has filed the present appeal.

3. Heard the Counsel for the Parties and perused the records made

available including cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

and earlier orders of this 'Appellate Tribunal'.

4. The 'Appellant' submitted that he was engaged in the business of

storing and preservation of potatoes, developing a cold storage etc., and to

start the business a project report was prepared estimating fixed cost of

Rs. 10.56 crores, in order to estimate the viability of the project including

the funding required which was estimated after discussion and on

assurance of the Respondent No. 1 herein. The 'Appellant' further

submitted that the project report specified term loan requirement of Rs. 6.98

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 2 of 18 crores and working capital requirement of Rs. 18.79 lakhs. The 'Appellant'

stated that the 'Respondent No. 1' herein orally gave the go by and thereafter

on this assurance, the 'Appellant' borrowed from the market anticipating

sanction of loan quickly. The 'Appellant' mentioned that against the

assurance given by the 'Respondent No. 1', sanction of the loan was badly

delayed and was communicated only after 6 months. Moreover, the loan

was not sanctioned of full amount as orally assured earlier, during

preparation of project report and was reduced from Rs. 6.98 crores as

reflected in project report to Rs. 4.48 crores vide sanction letter dated

14.01.2009.

5. The 'Appellant' submitted that cold storage industry is a seasonal

agriculture industry requiring huge funds at competitive rates to remain

viable and their revenue is largely by way of rent receivables. In this

background, working capital availability is fundamental to success of

business which was denied by the 'Respondent' who sanctioned much less

and much late vide sanction letter 07.07.2010, which came almost after half

of the loading season was complete and thereby adversely impacting the

business of the 'Corporate Debtor'.

6. The 'Appellant' mentioned that cold storage/ warehousing business is

covered under definition of 'priority sector' and is regulated by Guidelines of

Reserve Bank issued from time to time as per power conferred to RBI under

Section 21 and Section 35(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, thereby,

making the guidelines as statutory guidelines. The 'Appellant' submitted

that the 'Respondents' sanctioned the credit facility @13% interest per

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 3 of 18 annum payable on monthly basis and with a margin of 25% which was

against stipulated guidelines of RBI. The 'Appellant' further submitted that

the Respondent No. 1 also levied interest on monthly basis, whereas, the

RBI Guidelines specified interest to be charged on annual basis.

7. The 'Appellant' mentioned that he has mortgaged his property in the

name of the Respondent No. 1 as primary as well as collateral securities

including Hypothecation of all existing and future plans of machinery to be

purchased, acquired or installed by the 'Corporate Debtor'.

8. The 'Appellant' also alleged that the 'Respondent No. 1' debited his

account of Rs. 30 lakhs from cash credit and adjusted towards term loan

account without giving any notice to him or taking his consent and which

was completely unauthorised. The 'Appellant' also stated that in order to

develop business, he further requested for a loan of Rs. 4 crores as

'produced marketing loan' which was denied by the 'Respondent No. 1' on

01.12.2012, thereby, making difficult situation for the 'Appellant' to operate

the business.

9. The 'Appellant' mentioned that his business was in stressed situation

and therefore requested for renewal of existing limits to avoid getting his

account as NPA which was sanctioned much later on 10.09.2013, however

the 'Respondent No. 1' started sending several matters to regularise the

account immediately. The 'Appellant' further submitted that he was shocked

to know that on 28.04.2014, the 'Respondent No. 1' has classified his

account as NPA w.e.f. 31.03.2014 and demanded payment of Rs. 94.35

lakhs to operate account to standard account. The 'Appellant' submitted

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 4 of 18 that on 02.06.2014, the 'Respondent No. 1' issued a notice under Section

13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and claimed Rs. 7,54,82,000/- which was

denied by the 'Appellant' and the 'Appellant' also challenged the same under

Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 before DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal). In

the meanwhile, the 'Respondent No. 1' filed an attachment application

before the DRT-II, Kolkata. The 'Appellant' submitted that the recovery suit

before DRT is pending adjudication under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. During

course of events the 'Respondent No. 1' also filed application under Section

7 of the Code claiming an alleged debt of Rs. 15,68,12,389.14/- as on

31.07.2019.

10. The 'Appellant' submitted that although the 'Respondent No. 1'

classified his account as NPA as on 31.03.2014, however during hearing on

17.12.2021 before the 'Adjudicating Authority', the 'Respondent No. 1'

sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record the exact

date of default along with the Balance-Sheets of the Appellant Company

which was granted by the 'Adjudicating Authority' and thereafter

supplementary affidavit was filed, stating that inadvertently in Section 7

Application date of default was not mentioned. As per the 'Respondent No.

1', the default actually occurred on 31.12.2013 and the account of the

'Corporate Debtor' was classified as NPA on 31.03.2014 as per RBI

Prudential Norms and the same has been reflected in part - IV of the Section

7 Application.

11. The 'Appellant' denied that there was any default on 31.12.2013,

however for argument's sake, even it is presumed that default occurred on

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 5 of 18 31.12.2013 as claimed by the 'Respondent No. 1', loan account was renewed

on 25.02.2014, hence there could not be any default. The 'Appellant'

further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 relied upon Balance-Sheets for

the Financial Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and

2017-18, whereas the Appellant has not accepted the outstanding dues but

merely stipulated the credit facilities obtained.

12. The 'Appellant' claimed that the 'impugned order' dated 25.05.2022

is perverse and failed to consider the significant averments made by the

'Appellant' as well as the documentary evidence produced by him before the

'Adjudicating Authority'. Summing up the arguments, the 'Appellant'

requested that the 'impugned order' needs to be set aside and the 'Appeal' be

allowed.

13. Per-contra, the 'Respondent No. 1' denied all the averments of the

'Appellant' to be misleading, mischievous and without any basis with sole

intention to derail the process of resolution of the 'Corporate Debtor'.

14. The 'Respondent No. 1' submitted that on 12.02.2008, the 'Corporate

Debtor' filed an application for credit facilities in respect of term loan

account of Rs. 6.98 crores and cash credit for working capital term loan of

Rs. 18.79 lakhs and on 14.01.2009, the 'Respondent No. 1' sanctioned term

loan of Rs. 4.48 crores on following broad terms and conditions :-

I. Term loan of Rs. 4.48 crores were to be repaid in 28 total

instalment of Rs. 16 lakhs each, commencing from 24 months from

the date of first availment.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 6 of 18 II. Margin of 40% on land civil construction cost and 29% on plant

and machinery.

III. Monthly interest @13%.

IV. Respondent No. 1 was entitled to charge penal interest @2% over

and above the interest rate in case of delay or default in

submission of stock statements and renewal papers.

V. Primary and collateral security as detailed therein.

15. The 'Respondent No. 1' stated that Shri Manas Sarkar- Appellant and

Smt. Jayasree Sarkar executed guarantee agreements to pay Respondent

No. 1 of the said amount in case of default by the 'Corporate Debtor'. The

'Respondent No. 1' further stated that the 'Corporate Debtor' filed with

Registrar of Company on 14.01.2009 for creation of first charge of Rs. 4.48

crores regarding Hypothecation of property and assets in favour of the

'Respondent No. 1' which was deposited with Respondent No. 1 by the

'Appellant' on 17.03.2009.

16. The 'Respondent No. 1' stated that at the request of the 'Appellant',

they agreed to renew original term loan of Rs. 4.48 crores and sanctioned

fresh credit limit of Rs. 45 lakhs, thus total amount becoming as Rs. 4.93

crores as per terms and conditions mentioned in sanction letter dated

07.07.2010. The 'Respondent No. 1' also stated that the 'Appellant' made

balance confirmation on 27.09.2010 outstanding dues of Rs. 4,82,56,363/-.

17. The 'Respondent No. 1' submitted that on or about 29.06.2011, the

'Corporate Debtor' was availing with the Respondent No. 1 by way of various

credit facilities in respect of Term Loan Account limit Rs. 4.8 crores

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 7 of 18 (renewed and restructured), Cash Credit Account limit of Rs. 65 lakhs (from

Rs. 45 lakhs), Funded Interest Term Loan Account No. 1 limit of Rs. 18

lakhs, Funded Interest Term Loan Account No. II limit of Rs. 25 lakhs and

New Fresh Term Loan Account limit of Rs. 16 lakhs an aggregate sum of

Rs. 5.72 crores in terms of the sanction letter dated 29.06.2011.

18. The 'Respondent No. 1' stated that the 'Corporate Debtor' herein vide

Revival letter dated 29.06.2011 in respect of Term Loan Account of

Rs. 4.48 crores dated 12.03.2009 and Cash Credit Account limit dated

02.07.2010, acknowledged the debt and all the liabilities towards the credit

sanctioned along with the interest.

19. The 'Respondent No. 1' submitted that the 'Corporate Debtor' again

filed an application dated 25.02.2013 to the 'Respondent No. 1' for seeking

additional financial assistance in respect of various credit facilities viz

renewal of Term Loan limit of Rs. 4.48 crores with further rephasement of

instalments, enhancement in Cash Credit limit to Rs. 1 crore from

Rs. 65 lakhs, conversion of Cash Credit limit of Rs. 2.5 crores to Term Loan,

fresh Cash Credit PML limit of Rs. 2.5 crores, renewal of Existing limit of

Rs. 6.18 lakhs and funded interest Term Loan Account limit of Rs. 25 lakhs

etc.

20. The 'Respondent No. 1' emphasised that the 'Corporate Debtor' again

made a loan application dated 03.02.2014 to the 'Respondent No. 1' for

claiming further financial assistance involving restructuring of the entire

existing credit facilities of term loan and cash credit accounts amounting

Rs. 9 crores.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 8 of 18

21. The 'Respondent No. 1' submitted that considering the request made

by the 'Corporate Debtor' for sanction/ renewal of the credit facilities, the

Respondent No. 1 issued 'Credit Sanction Advice' letter dated 25.02.2014

and it was an explicit condition in the said 'Credit Sanction Advice' Letter

dated 25.02.2014 that the 'Corporate Debtor' will immediately regularize the

overdues in the accounts over and above the sanctioned limits.

22. The 'Respondent No. 1' stated that the 'Corporate Debtor' wilfully and

intentionally failed and neglected to regularize the accounts and acted

contrary to the mandatory terms and conditions of the 'Credit Sanction

Advice' Letter dated 25.02.2014. The 'Respondent No. 1' bank vide its letter

dated 03.03.2014 requested the 'Corporate Debtor' to regularize the

accounts to avoid the account slipping to NPA in March 2014 vide letter

dated 03.03.2014.

23. The 'Respondent No. 1' emphasised that the 'Corporate Debtor'

thereafter vide letter dated 10.03.2014 assured the respondent No. 1 to

regularize the said accounts. The 'Respondent No. 1' further emphasised

that the in spite of repeated requests of the 'Respondent No. 1, the

'Corporate Debtor' failed and neglected to maintain the aforesaid account

regularly. The date of default in the loan account of the 'Corporate Debtor'

is 31.12.2013 and the loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2014 as

stated in the supplementary affidavit dated 17.12.2021.

24. The 'Respondent No. 1' submitted that he was constrained to issue

Notice dated 02.06.2014 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to

the 'Corporate Debtor' demanding a sum of Rs. 8,35,01,906/- with interest

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 9 of 18 calculated up to 01.06.2014 and further interest charges at the agreed rate

from 02.06.2014 ti1l the date of realization.

25. The 'Respondent No. 1' submitted that the 'Corporate Debtor' has

continuously availed and utilized the credit facilities sanctioned and

disbursed by the 'Respondent No. 1' but defaulted in payment of principal,

interest and other charges. The 'Respondent No. 1' stated that the existence

of debt and default has been continuous acknowledged by the 'Corporate

Debtor' in its Balance Sheets along with the Statutory Auditor's Report for

the period ending on 31.03.2013, 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015, 31.03.2016,

31.03.2017 and 31.03.2018.

26. This 'Appellate Tribunal' has gone through all averments as discussed

in preceding paragraphs and seen various documents referred to and made

available. It is the case of the 'Appellant' that the 'Respondent No. 1' has

failed to keep his promise in handholding and rendering due support to the

'Appellant'. At the first stage, the amount orally promised was not

sanctioned and more so the amount which was sanctioned was also

sanctioned quite late. To bridge the time gap, the 'Appellant' had to borrow

money from the market and all these activities effected the viability of the

project of the 'Appellant'. The 'Appellant' emphasised that the agriculture

business being cyclic, is dependent on several factors including the credit

facilities available to it. Subsequently, during the course of the business,

the 'Appellant' needed more resources, which were denied by the

'Respondent No. 1' and which aggravated the financial distress of the

'Corporate Debtor'.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 10 of 18

27. It is also the case of the 'Appellant' that the 'Respondent No. 1'/ bank

violated the guidelines of RBI regarding primary sector landing and referred

to 'Master Circular - RBI landing to priority sector' issued by the RBI on

02.07.2012 vide letter no. RBI/2012-13/108. The 'Appellant' alleged that

the 'Respondent No. 1' breeched in three manners i.e. charging exorbitant

interest rate @13% against the stipulated rates of RBI, secondly, instead of

charging interest on annual basis, the 'Respondent No. 1' charge interest on

monthly basis and thirdly it kept huge margin money. The 'Appellant'

submitted that due to violation of mandatory guidelines of RBI the

'Respondent No. 1' failed to meet the statutory requirements and therefore is

not entitled for proceeding under Section 7 of the Code.

28. The 'Appellant' also alleged that there was no default in terms of

Section 2(12) of the Code and this fact can be corroborated by taking into

consideration that in the original application filed by the 'Respondent No. 1'

before the 'Adjudicating Authority' under section 7 of the Code, no date of

default was indicated and the 'Respondent No. 1' had to seek permission

from the 'Adjudicating Authority' to file the supplementary affidavit wherein

he indicated the date of default as 31.03.2013. According to the 'Appellant',

the 'Adjudicating Authority' erred in admitting the 'Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process' against the 'Corporate Debtor'.

29. The 'Appellant' stated that he never acknowledged the debt as

outstanding as claimed by the 'Respondent No. 1' and in the various

Balance-Sheets from 2012-13 to 2017-18, the 'Corporate Debtor' merely

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 11 of 18 stipulated the credit facilities obtained by the 'Appellant' and which cannot

be treated as acknowledgment of debt.

30. It is further the case of the 'Appellant' that the 'Respondent No. 1' was

always taking action unilaterally and in violation of the prevalent practices

and/or agreements between both the parties in so much so that the

'Respondent No. 1' illegally debited interest from cash credit account to term

loan account to show payment of interest. Further, the alleged default on

31.12.2013 was prior to the date of renewal of loan amount on 25.02.2014.

31. The 'Appellant' assailed the 'impugned order' being perverse and has

been passed on the basis of erroneous assumptions, surmises and

conjunctures.

32. As again, the 'Respondent No. 1' has taken all the efforts to

demonstrate that the impugned order was strictly in light of the admitted

facts and recording including acknowledgement by the 'Corporate Debtor'

and in accordance with the law/ code. According to the 'Respondent No. 1',

the 'Adjudicating Authority' is to verify whether the debt was outstanding

and default took place and if so, the 'Adjudicating Authority' is simply

required to admit the application for 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process'.

33. This 'Appellate Tribunal' has seen the averments of both the parties

regarding higher interest rate, periodicity of interest charges and margins. It

is noted that RBI Guidelines on priority sector lending is applicable to all

bank including the 'Respondent No. 1' herein, however it is not for the

'Adjudicating Authority' to go into whether these guidelines were followed or

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 12 of 18 otherwise before examining the application filed under Section 7 of the

Code. Section 7 of the Code reads as under :-

"7. Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor.

(1) A financial creditor either by itself or jointly with [other financial creditors, or any other person on behalf of the financial creditor, as may be notified by the Central Government] may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred.

[Provided that for the financial creditors, referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (6A) of section 21, an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor shall be filed jointly by not less than one hundred of such creditors in the same class or not less than ten per cent. of the total number of such creditors in the same class, whichever is less:

Provided further that for financial creditors who are allottees under a real estate project, an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor shall be filed jointly by not less than one hundred of such allottees under the same real estate project or not less than ten per cent. of the total number of such allottees under the same real estate project, whichever is less:

Provided also that where an application for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor has been filed by a financial creditor referred to in the first or second provisos and has not been admitted by

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 13 of 18 the Adjudicating Authority before the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, such application shall be modified to comply with the requirements of the first or second provisos within thirty days of the commencement of the said Act, failing which the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn before its admission.]

Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a default includes a default in respect of a financial debt owed not only to the applicant financial creditor but to any other financial creditor of the corporate debtor.

(2) The financial creditor shall make an application under sub-section (1) in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.

(3) The financial creditor shall, along with the application furnish -

(a) record of the default recorded with the information utility or such other record or evidence of default as may be specified;

(b)the name of the resolution professional proposed to act as an interim resolution professional; and

(c) any other information as may be specified by the Board.

(4) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), ascertain the existence of a default from the records of an information utility or on the basis of other evidence furnished by the financial creditor under sub-section (3):

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 14 of 18 [Provided that if the Adjudicating Authority has not ascertained the existence of default and passed an order under sub-section (5) within such time, it shall record its reasons in writing for the same.]

(5) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that -

(a) a default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, admit such application; or

(b) default has not occurred or the application under sub-section (2) is incomplete or any disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, reject such application:

Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting the application under clause (b) of sub-section (5), give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority.

(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (5).

(7) The Adjudicating Authority shall communicate-

(a) the order under clause (a) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor and the corporate debtor;

(b) the order under clause (b) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor, within seven days of

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 15 of 18 admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be."

(emphasis supplied)

34. From reading the above Section 7 of the Code, it is therefore clear that

it lays down the procedure for initiation of the CIRP by a 'Financial Creditor'

who can file an application before the 'Adjudicating Authority' along with

proof of default and name of Resolution Professional proposed to act as

'Interim Resolution Professional'. The 'Adjudicating Authority' is required to

ascertain the existence of default within 14 days from the date of receipt of

the application. It is further noted that once the 'Adjudicating Authority' is

satisfied regarding existence of default and that the application is complete

and no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed 'Interim

Resolution Professional', the 'Adjudicating Authority' is required to admit the

application and is not required to look into any other criteria for the

admission of the application. It is nobody's case to cause delay in admission

of CIRP on miscellaneous grounds.

35. This 'Appellate Tribunal' also notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India as well as this 'Appellate Tribunal' itself has, held in catena of

judgments that there is no scope for judicial interventions and over reach by

the 'Adjudicating Authority' or the 'Appellate Tribunal' to interpret any

further, if the existence of due and subsequent default is established.

36. In view of these provisions, the plea of the 'Appellant' regarding

violation of the RBI Guidelines on 'Priority Sector Landing' cannot be allowed

to affect the fate of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code. It is for

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 16 of 18 the 'Appellant' to seek necessary remedies, if any and if required against the

'Respondent No. 1' for violation of Master Circular of RBI regarding 'Priority

Sector Landing' at appropriate forum in accordance with the law. Hence, on

this account we do not find any error in the 'impugned order'.

37. As regards, the date of default, it has been observed that the

'Respondent No. 1' has been writing from time to time to the 'Appellant' to

clear the dues in order to avoid his account to become NPA. The date of

default has been clearly stipulated as 31.12.2013 and the date of NPA has

been indicated as 31.03.2014 which has been accepted by the 'Adjudicating

Authority' after examining the supplementary affidavit of the 'Respondent

No. 1'. It is also noted that the 'Corporate Debtor' has acknowledge the debt

time and again at various places including 6 consecutive Balance- Sheets.

Hence, we do not find any error on the account of date of default based on

which the application filed under Section 7 of the Code was admitted by the

'Adjudicating Authority'.

38. As regard, pending suit before the 'Debt Recovery Tribunal' for

adjudication, it is settled law that such pending adjudication does not come

in a way of deciding application filed under Section 7 of the Code.

39. As regards, the debiting the amount by the 'Respondent No. 1' from

the cash credit and adjusted towards term loan without consent of the

'Appellant', this 'Appellate Tribunal' notes that this is matter of execution

and monitoring of various credit facilities between the 'Financial Creditor'

and the 'Corporate Debtor' and the same is supposed to be done as per

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 17 of 18 extent banking practices. Hence, this plea in no way effects the outcome of

the application filed under Section 7 of the Code.

40. In view of forgoing detailed examination of various facts, law and

record made available, this 'Appellate Tribunal' do not find any error in the

'impugned order'. This 'Appellate Tribunal' is also conscious of the fact that

the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a self-contained 'Code' and its

proceeding are summary in nature.

41. The 'Appeal' devoid of any merit is dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory

Applications, if any, are closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Simran/RR

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 701 of 2022 Page 18 of 18