Miss Lucy
← All judgments

N. Lingusamy vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal10 December 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The absence of movable or immovable property in the corporate debtor is not a ground for setting aside an order admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; such matters fall to be determined at the resolution stage by the Committee of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority, failing which the process may proceed to liquidation.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 412 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

N. Lingusamy ...Appellant

Vs

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. A, Venkata Subramanian and Mr. A. Leo George Rozario, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Brajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

10.12.2018: Admittedly, pursuant to an agreement, a consolidated sum of

Rs.1 Crore was paid to the Corporate Debtor and inspite of repeated notices the

Corporate Debtor failed to pay the amount with interest. For the said reason the

application under Section 7 was preferred by 'M/s Shriram City Union Finance

Ltd.' against 'M/s Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Private Limited' (Corporate

Debtor) which has been admitted.

2. Initially, learned counsel for the Appellant sought time to settle the claim

with the Financial Creditor but having failed, we intend to hear the case on merit.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Corporate Debtor

has no movable or immovable property and as such the Financial Creditor will

not gain anything, if Section 7 application is admitted. However, such ground

cannot be noticed for setting aside the order of admission as these are the issues -2-

which can be determined at the stage of resolution by the Committee of Creditors

and the Adjudicating Authority and on failure they may proceed with liquidation.

3. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)

am/uk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 412 of 2018

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