Mr. Sagar Shankar Bait vs L&T Finance Limited & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Sagar Shankar Bait ...Appellant

Vs.

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Mr. Zain A Khan, Mr. Beenu Sharma, Advocates For Respondent: Adv. Nidhi Mehrotra, Adv. Pratyush Preet Singh, for Respondent Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. for RP

ORDER

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)

28.02.2023: This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2019,

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai

Bench) by which an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') by L & T Housing Finance Limited

(Financial Creditor) against Majestic Market Research Support Services Limited

(Corporate Debtor) for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 3,25,00,837/- was

admitted, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated and

moratorium was imposed.

2. The only argument raised by the Appellant is that the loan was not taken

by the Appellant as a co-borrower. It is submitted that it was a home loan, taken

by Sandeep Bhatia on 26.03.2018 of a sum of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-, repayable in 2

180 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 3,34,708/- for the purchase of flat no.

1303, 13th Floor, F Block, Kanaka Park, Kher Wadi, Bandra, Mumbai - 51. It is

also case of the Appellant that another loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 27.03.2017,

repayable in 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 9,129/- which was also

availed by Sandeep Bhatia. Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention

to the home loan agreement. He has submitted that clause 1.1(h) of the

agreement defines as to who shall be the co-borrower. As per 1.1(h) co-borrower

shall be the person named in the schedule hereto. He has then referred to the

schedule appended with the agreement in which according to him the column of

co-borrower is blank. He has also submitted that the home loan agreement has

been signed by Sandeep Bhatia as an individual and the Corporate Debtor has

nothing to do with the loan obtained by him.

3. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that not

only the home loan was applied by Sandeep Bhatia as an individual but the

Corporate Debtor had also applied for the said loan under the signature of

Sandeep Bhatia as a director. She has also submitted that the entire home loan

agreement has the signatures not only of Sandeep Bhatia as an individual but

also of the Corporate Debtor through director which signifies that the Company

was a co-borrower.

4. Be that as it may, we have asked a precise question to Counsel for the

Appellant as to whether the Corporate Debtor, while defending the application

filed under Section 7 of the Code, has anywhere said that the Appellant was not

a co-borrower or Sandeep Bhatia has put his signature as a director fraudulently 3

in order to create the liability of the Company or the Company has ever taken

any action against Sandeep Bhatia. Counsel for the Appellant could not give any

answer.

5. Thus, from the perusal of the record, we have found that initially loan offer

letter dated 27.03.2018 was signed by both Sandeep Bhatia as an individual and

Sandeep Bhatia on behalf of the Corporate Debtor as a co-applicant and the

revised loan offer letter dated 11.04.2018 was also signed by both of them as an

applicant and co-applicant. Besides the aforesaid factor, the very fact that the

entire home loan agreement was signed by Sandeep Bhatia as a director of the

Corporate Debtor and no action has been taken ever by the Corporate Debtor

against Sandeep Bhatia shows that the Corporate Debtor itself was a co-

borrower/co-applicant for the purpose of taking home loan and the objection

which has now been taken is just an afterthought.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit

in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) Sheetal/RR