Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ms. Poorani Nagarajan, (Shareholder In ... vs Indian Bank & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal18 December 2017

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority may admit an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 where the Financial Creditor shows that a debt is due from the Corporate Debtor, that the Corporate Debtor has committed a default, and that the application record is complete. A correspondence between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, such as a letter inviting discussion on a recovery action plan, issued after the Adjudicating Authority has heard the parties but before its admission order, does not render that admission order illegal.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 318 of 2017IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Poorani Nagarajan, (Shareholder in M/s. Infinitas Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Indian Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant : Shri Karthick Ranganathan, Shri T. S. Sundaram and Shri R. Vishnu Kumar, Advocates

ORDER

18.12.2017 By the impugned order dated 18th September, 2017, the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai admitted the

application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the "I&B Code") having noticed that there is a debt and

default and documents filed by the respondent - Indian Bank (Financial Creditor)

is complete.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant challenging the

impugned order submitted that the Joint Lenders Forum, in their meeting had

already decided to revive the Corporate Debtor and, therefore, it cannot be

treated to be a default on the part of the appellant. He placed reliance on a

notice dated 14th September, 2017 issued by the Financial Creditor, just before

the admission of the application asking the appellant to discuss its action plan

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 318 of 2017 1 for recovery of the bank dues. However, we find that letter was issued by the

Financial Creditor, after notice and hearing the parties by the Adjudicating

Authority but before passing of the impugned order dated 15th September, 2017.

According to us the correspondence aforesaid will not render the impugned order

illegal.

Admittedly, there being a debt due from the appellant and the appellant

having committed default and record being complete, no ground made out to

interfere with the impugned order. In absence of any merit, the appeal is

dismissed. No cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)

/ns/uk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 318 of 2017 2

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