Rashesh Purohit vs Punjab National Bank & Anr

Rashesh Purohit ...Appellant Versus Punjab national Bank & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Jain, Mr. Bhawishya Singh and Mr. Samarth Arora, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Karan Gandhi and Ms. Sudiksha Saini, Advocates for Interim Resolution Professional. Mr. Hashmat Nabi and Mr. Farah Naaz, Advocates for Respondent No. 1- PNB Bank.

ORDER

17.02.2020 Perused orders dated 16th December, 2019. In this Appeal

limited notice was issued to find if the parties have reached the terms of

settlement or not. Till today, parties for both the sides are trading changes

against each other why settlement has not been possible. The parties have not

been able to settle between them.

2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is circular dated

1st January, 2019 issued by Reserve Bank of India, copy of which is at page 243

of the Appeal paper book. It is stated that as per this circular the Banks are

required to consider the case of 'MSME' for restructuring of dues by way of 'OTS'

and should have given time of one year.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant is urging that because the 'Corporate

Debtor' is 'MSME', the bank should have accepted the settlement offered.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1453 of 2019 -2-

4. The Learned counsel for the Respondent is submitting that although on

16th December, 2019, the Appellant had stated that the Appellant would settle

the amount of 'NPA', the Directors of the Company when contacted the Bank

offered less amount to be repaid in a longer period and thus, the settlement could

not become possible.

5. As far as Circular is concerned, it is a matter for the Appellant and the

Bank to take up with the 'RBI' if they have grievance against each other. The

Circular does not create bar to filing of Application under Section 7 of IBC.

6. Coming to the impugned order, what appears is that the Appellant claimed

that the Company availed the facility of over draft in an around January, 2017.

It is stated that due to goods and services tax imposition, the Company suffered

in its economics. It is stated that the Appellant tried to settle with the Bank but

the bank did not accept the settlement and the application under Section 7 of

the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed and it is admitted.

7. Impugned Order found that there is debt due of more than Rs. 1 lakh and

default is there. The Account of Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA by Bank

on 12.10.2018. There appears no error in the Impugned Order admitting

application. The admission Order appears to be justified.

8. On merits of the admission of the Section 7 Application there is no case

made out in Appeal. We do not find any reasons to interfere. The Appeal is

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1453 of 2019 -3-

disposed of without interfering in the impugned order. No orders as to costs.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Justice A.B. Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

R N/md /

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1453 of 2019