Shailja Nagar vs Canara Bank & Anr

Shailja Nagar ...Appellant

Versus

Canara Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Nakul Mohta and Mr. Lalit Mohan, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Prachie Jain, Advocate for R-2.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

07.04.2021: Appellant is aggrieved of admission of application of Financial

Creditor - 'Canara Bank' filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code in terms of

impugned order dated 22nd March, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi Bench (Court-II). The ground urged

in appeal is that it is a Home -buyers project and the Corporate Debtor has

submitted an OTS proposal which was pending consideration before the Financial

Creditor when the impugned order came to be passed.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the Appellant we find a letter of Financial

Creditor at page 44 of the appeal paper book. It is dated 11 th March, 2021 and

reads that the competent authority has not considered the proposal of Corporate

Cont'd...../ -2-

Debtor favourably. At page 45A, there is letter dated 30th March, 2021 which

informs the Corporate Debtor that its improved OTS proposal has been considered

and some terms have been formulated for compliance by the Corporate Debtor

which include amount of Rs.37.80 Crores as OTS amount of which Rs.3.78 Crores

was required to be deposited alongwith the OTS proposal and 3.15% of OTS

amount to be paid within 7 days from conveying sanction. There are other terms

and conditions also made in the letter in regard to the balance amount. This

appears to be a development subsequent to passing of the impugned order.

3. If the Corporate Debtor is serious about accepting the terms set by the

Financial Creditor with reference to the minimum amount acceptable under the

OTS proposal and the mode of payment, it is for it to take steps for a settlement

being reached and acted upon. The exit route is available for the Corporate Debtor

within the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process mechanism. However, the

ground urged cannot be a ground to se t aside the impugned order which is not

shown to be suffering from any legal infirmity. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

However, it shall not be a bar for the Appellant to seek remedy before the

Adjudicating Authority.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) am/gc Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 289 of 2021