Vinodkumar Mahasukhbhai Thaker Member ... vs Kurlon Limited & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Vinodkumar Mahasukhbhai Thaker ....Appellant

Vs.

Kurlon Limited & Anr. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Honey Satpal, Ms. Aishwarya Modi, Mr. Nipun Singhvi, Mr. Vishal J. Dave, Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Aditya Vijaykumar, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)

31.01.2025: This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.12.2023

by which an application filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 bearing CP (IB)

No. 195 of 2019 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (application

to the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, for the resolution of an amount of

Rs. 71,61,091/- has been admitted and Mr. Rajeshkumar Malani was

appointed as the IRP.

2. Notice in this appeal was issued on 03.01.2024 and the operation of the

impugned order was stayed. The said order is reproduced as under:

"03.01.2024: Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that against the Loan of Rs. 52,50,000/- after filing of the petition Appellant has already paid 65 Lakhs which has been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority but the Adjudicating Authority has erred in observing that since there was no direction that it

Cont'd..../ -2-

should be adjusted in the loan the amount has been adjusted in some other loan hence Section 7 Application has been admitted.

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the amount has been adjusted in other loan with regard to which C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019 was filed which was dismissed as infructuous by order of the same date.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that with regard to document which is subject matter of C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019 i.e. Master Lending Agreement dated 25th April, 2017, the land has already been conveyed to the Financial Creditor and there was no question of making payment against the said loan hence the amount was to be adjusted in the loan arising out of CP(IB) No. 195 of 2019."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is allegedly in the

business of 'Manufacturing of Mattress and Finance Lending'. The respondent

has allegedly granted a loan of Rs. 52,50,000/- with interest to the appellant.

As per letter dated 11.04.2020, followed by a loan agreement dated 25.04.2017

executed between the parties. The respondent disbursed the loan on

21.04.2017 to which the appellant furnished the guarantee.

4. It is alleged that the appellant (CD) paid the EMI for the month of April,

2017 but did not pay the remaining amount, therefore, a demand notice was

issued by the respondent on 18.01.2019 and when the appellant failed to repay

despite the demand, filed the application under Section 7 for the resolution of

an amount of Rs. 71,61,091/-.

5. It is pertinent to mention that after filing of the present application

bearing CP (IB) No. 195 of 2019, the respondent also filed one more petition

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -3-

under Section 7 against the present appellant bearing C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019

in respect of default of loan of Rs. 7.5 crores alleged to have been advanced to

the appellant vide agreement dated 25.04.2017.

6. The application bearing CP (IB) No. 195 of 2019 was heard on

16.09.2022 and the order was reserved. The said order is reproduced as under:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -4-

7. However, the matter was de-reserved on 19.12.2022. The said order is

also reproduced as under:

" Order IA- 893 of 2022

Application is filed by the Corporate Debtor. In the main application filed u/s 7 of the IBC, 2016, arguments were heard and order was reserved. Thereafter in view of the Vidarbha judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Corporate Debtor has filed this application to consider the point raised in this application before passing any order in the main application. Learned Counsel Mr. Dave for the Applicant requests for adjournment stating that arguing counsel is not available. Pleadings are complete and matter will be heard. Order reserved in CP(IB) 195 of 2019 stands de-reserved.

List on 20.01.2023."

8. After de-reserving the order, hearing in the main application along with

another application was continued and the Tribunal ultimately passed the

order on 04.10.2023 for filing the written submissions by both the parties. The

said order dated 04.10.2023 is reproduced as under:

"ORDER

Heard both counsels.

Both counsels are directed to file written submissions within a week. List for hearing on 18.10.2023."

9. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the written

submissions were filed by the appellant on 18.10.2023 i.e. the date on which

the case was listed along with an email dated 13.10.2023 as Annexure-A. The

said written submissions, which are only in two pages, is also reproduced

along with Annexure-A as under:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -5-

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -6-

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -7-

10. This fact has been noticed by the Ld. Tribunal in its order that the

appellant has in fact made the payment of Rs. 65 lakhs against the total

outstanding amount of Rs. 71,61,091/- and has also observed in paragraph 8

that "From this Annexure-A, it is clear that the respondent has repaid some

amount towards loan as mentioned in this application." yet admitted the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -8-

application, on the premise that the amount which has been paid by the

appellant was adjusted by the respondent in respect of the amount due in the

other application bearing CP (IB) No. 196 of 2019 and admitted the application

on the ground that the debt and default has been admitted.

11. Counsel for the appellant has argued that in the email dated 13.10.2023,

the appellant has categorically mentioned that in terms of Section 59 of Indian

Contract Act, 1872 (for short 'Act') the payment of Rs. 65 lakhs made is to be

adjusted in the petition filed by the respondent under Section 7 bearing CP (IB)

No. 195 of 2019 and not in respect of C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019. Therefore, the

Ld. Tribunal should not have adjusted the amount of Rs. 65 lakhs in CP (IB)

No. 196 of 2019 specifically when the appellant had categorically mentioned to

the respondent that it should not be adjusted towards C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019.

In this regard, he has not only referred to Section 59 of the Act but also to

Section 60 of the Act which provides that in case there is no intimation by the

Corporate Debtor for the adjustment of the amount in a particular manner,

then the Creditor may adjust the said amount at his choice. He has also

submitted that at no point of time the respondent had informed the appellant

that the amount paid by the appellant has been adjusted in the C.P.(IB) No.

196 of 2019 nor any reply has been given to the email dated 13.10.2023, which

is not denied to have been received by the respondent because it has been

referred to in the impugned order by the Ld. Tribunal itself.

12. He has thus submitted that out of Rs. 71,61,091/- if a sum of Rs. 65

lakhs is deducted, the appellant is ready and wiling to pay the balance amount

with whatever interest has accrued upon it. He has also submitted that for a

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -9-

petty amount which is left to be paid, the company which is a going concern

should not be pushed into CIRP.

13. As against this argument, counsel for the respondent has vehemently

argued that there is no error in the impugned order which calls for any

interference by this Court because the amount of Rs. 65 lakhs which has been

paid by the appellant has rightly been adjusted in C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019. It is

submitted by counsel for the respondent that this fact has been mentioned in

the written submission as well. He has further submitted that the appellant

had earlier sent an email dated 13.07.2022 in which he has offered to pay

Rs. 4 crores but the same has never been acted upon. He has also submitted

that in the C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019, the appellant has not executed the sale

deed etc., therefore, if this petition is allowed then the appellant shall be

nowhere.

14. In this regard, counsel for the appellant has submitted that C.P.(IB) No.

196 of 2019 has in fact not been decided by the Ld. Tribunal on merits. He has

submitted that even the said application is not maintainable because it was not

a case of advancement of loan rather it was a case where the sale deed was to

be executed and which in fact has been executed. He has further submitted

that the interest of the respondent has been duly protected by the Ld. Tribunal

while disposing of C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019 on the same date i.e. 22.12.2023 by

observing that "this petition is disposed of with liberty to file again before this

Tribunal in case the petition admitted in CP (IB) No. 195 of 2019 is set aside by

any other court."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -10-

15. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their

able assistance.

16. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the amount paid by the

appellant to the tune of Rs. 65 lakhs was to be adjusted in CP (IB) No. 195 of

2019 or C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019?

17. In this regard, the only evidence available on record is the email dated

13.10.2023 which has been sent by the appellant before the decision could

have been taken by the Tribunal. There is no reply to this email by the

respondent though the respondent could have easily replied to this email dated

13.10.2023 by putting a line that the amount of Rs. 65 lakhs has been

adjusted in C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019 and cannot be adjusted in CP (IB) No. 195

of 2019.

18. In the absence of any direction on the part of the respondent and in the

presence of an express intimation by the appellant, we are of the considered

opinion that Section 59 of the Act would apply with full force instead of Section

60 as argued by the counsel for the respondent. In this regard, it would be

relevant to refer to both the Section 59 & 60 of the Act, which are reproduced

as under:

"Section 59: Application of payment where debt to be discharged is indicated.

59. Where a debtor, owing several distinct debts to one person, makes a payment to him, either with express intimation, or under circumstances implying, that the payment is to be applied to the discharge of some particular debt, the payment, if accepted, must be applied accordingly.

Section 60. Application of payment where debt to be discharged is not indicated.--

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -11-

Where the debtor has omitted to intimate, and there are no other circumstances indicating to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion to any lawful debt actually due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is or is not barred by the law in force for the time being as to the limitations of suits."

19. It is also pertinent to mention that at no point of time the respondent

had given any express intimation to the appellant about the treatment of the

amount which has been paid by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 65 lakhs,

therefore, the respondent cannot take the plea that in the presence of an

express intimation by the appellant by virtue of email dated 13.10.2023,

Section 60 would be applicable.

20. No other point has been raised.

21. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered

opinion that the Ld. Tribunal has committed a patent error in not appreciating

the facts of this case in its true prospect while observing that "it is pertinent to

note that the lender has discretion to adjust the amount paid to any loan if

particular direction is not given by the borrower" and then referring to the email

dated 13.10.2023 in which a specific intimation has been given by the

appellant, which goes to the root of the case, for adjustment of the amount of

Rs. 65 lakhs in CP (IB) No. 195 of 2019 instead of C.P.(IB) No. 196 of 2019.

22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the present appeal

succeeds and the impugned order is set aside.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024 -12-

23. The remaining amount after deducting Rs.65 lakhs out of

Rs.71,61,091/- shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent with interest

calculated @ 9% PA from the date it became due till the date it is paid, within

two months from the date of this order. No costs. I.As if any pending, stands

closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/RR

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 03 of 2024