Ritusree Basu vs Punjab National Bank & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.151 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Pending or parallel proceedings between the creditor and the corporate debtor, including settlement negotiations under an OTS scheme and proceedings before the DRT under the SARFAESI Act, do not obstruct the Adjudicating Authority from examining and deciding an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Where the Adjudicating Authority finds that the application is complete, that the format and annexures have been duly examined, and that debt and default are established, it is bound to admit the application under Section 7.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ritusree Basu ...Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors. ...Respondents
For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Jain and Shri Piyush Joshi, Advocates
For Respondents: None
ORDER
27.01.2020 Heard Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed
against Impugned Order dated 13th December, 2019 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench,
Kolkata) in CP (IB) No.1139/KB/2018. Punjab National Bank filed the
Application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC -
in short) against M/s. Hotel East Palace Pvt. Ltd. which has been admitted
and thus, the present Appeal by the Director/Shareholder.
2. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor had taken term loan and working
capital facility of Rs.15 Crores from the Punjab National Bank in July, 2012.
The learned Counsel states that the Bank filed Section 7 Application claiming
that the account of the Corporate Debtor has become NPA and the Bank had
decided to recall the entire loan granted. It appears that Demand Notice dated
14th January, 2017 was issued to the Corporate Debtor demanding
Rs.16,60,32,532/- which included interest upto 31st December, 2016. On 2
such basis, the Bank moved the Adjudicating Authority and the proceeding
was admitted.
3. The Application under Section 7 appears to have been filed in August,
2018.
4. The learned Counsel for Appellant states that during the pendency of
the Section 7 Application, the Bank had issued letter (Annexure A-5) on 4th
June, 2019 pointing out that the account had become NPA on 28th January,
2016 and whether the Appellant was interested in getting benefit of Special
One-time Settlement Scheme which had been issued. By another letter
(Annexure A-6) on 4th June, 2019, the Bank asked deposit of 10% of the OTS
amount in case the Appellant wanted to indicate willingness for OTS proposal.
Counsel states that the Appellant sent letter dated 03.07.2019 offering more
than 10%, which amount was accepted by the Bank. The letter states that
Corporate Debtor was in precarious position. It is stated that later, by letter
dated 15.07.2019 (Page No.272), the Bank informed as under:-
"Ref: Your OTS proposal dt. 03.07.2019 Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter dt. 03.07.2019 regarding your OTS offer of Rs.9.35 crore we like to inform that as per bank's OTS policy in your case minimum OTS offer of book outstanding can be considered. Therefore, you are requested to revise your offer and submit fresh request with 10% upfront.
Please note that no OTS proposal is pending with the bank."
5. The learned Counsel for Appellant states that the Bank should have
given respect to its earlier offer and the communication as at Annexure A-11
was not justified. Annexure A-12 shows Order of DRT dated 12.12.2019 that
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.151 of 2020 3
the Bank had also initiated proceeding under the SARFAESI and the matter
was before DRT, which gave direction how to go about with the consideration
of OTS.
6. Having heard Counsel for the Appellant, although it appears that after
filing of the Section 7 Application, there were some developments between the
parties as mentioned above and the question of OTS was looked into by DRT
also, we find that those proceedings cannot be an obstruction for the
Adjudicating Authority to deal with Section 7 Application and the
Adjudicating Authority finding debt due and default and the application to be
complete, admitted the Application on 13th December, 2019. We do not find
that there is anything illegal in the Impugned Order which has been passed.
The Adjudicating Authority was required to examine the format and
annexures submitted by the Bank and when it found that the Application was
complete and there was debt and default, the Adjudicating was bound to
admit the same.
There is no reason to admit the Appeal. There is no merit.
We decline to admit the Appeal.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
(Justice A.B. Singh) Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) /rs/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.151 of 2020
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