Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Case4 - NewDelhiBenchV-Intec Capital V. SRD Management Company Private-06-03.2023

    Uploaded by

    priyanka prashant
    The National Company Law Tribunal admitted a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Intec Capital Limited against SRD Management Company Private Limited. Intec Capital provided loans totaling Rs. 3,14,00,000 to SRD Management but SRD Management defaulted on payments despite restructuring agreements. While SRD Management argued the petition was time-barred and there was no debt acknowledgment, the Tribunal deemed Intec Capital's petition complete and established a default exceeding the required amount. As a result, the Tribunal admitted the application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against SRD Management and appointed an interim resolution professional to manage the process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case4 - NewDelhiBenchV-Intec Capital V. SRD Management Company Private-06-03.2023

    Uploaded by

    priyanka prashant
    29 views4 pages
    The National Company Law Tribunal admitted a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Intec Capital Limited against SRD Management Company Private Limited. Intec Capital provided loans totaling Rs. 3,14,00,000 to SRD Management but SRD Management defaulted on payments despite restructuring agreements. While SRD Management argued the petition was time-barred and there was no debt acknowledgment, the Tribunal deemed Intec Capital's petition complete and established a default exceeding the required amount. As a result, the Tribunal admitted the application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against SRD Management and appointed an interim resolution professional to manage the process.

    Original Description:

    IBC CASE LAW

    Original Title

    Case4_NewDelhiBenchV-Intec Capital V. SRD Management Company Private-06-03.2023

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The National Company Law Tribunal admitted a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Intec Capital Limited against SRD Management Company Private Limited. Intec Capital provided loans totaling Rs. 3,14,00,000 to SRD Management but SRD Management defaulted on payments despite restructuring agreements. While SRD Management argued the petition was time-barred and there was no debt acknowledgment, the Tribunal deemed Intec Capital's petition complete and established a default exceeding the required amount. As a result, the Tribunal admitted the application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against SRD Management and appointed an interim resolution professional to manage the process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views4 pages

    Case4 - NewDelhiBenchV-Intec Capital V. SRD Management Company Private-06-03.2023

    Uploaded by

    priyanka prashant
    The National Company Law Tribunal admitted a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Intec Capital Limited against SRD Management Company Private Limited. Intec Capital provided loans totaling Rs. 3,14,00,000 to SRD Management but SRD Management defaulted on payments despite restructuring agreements. While SRD Management argued the petition was time-barred and there was no debt acknowledgment, the Tribunal deemed Intec Capital's petition complete and established a default exceeding the required amount. As a result, the Tribunal admitted the application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against SRD Management and appointed an interim resolution professional to manage the process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

    NEW DELHI, BENCH-V

    PETITION NO.: CP (IB) No.1058/PB/2020

    Date of Order/ Judgement: 06.03.2023

    Parties:

    M/s INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED


    ... Applicant/Financial Creditor
    V.

    M/s SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED


    ...Respondent/Corporate Debtor

    Bench: SHRI P.S.N. PRASAD: MEMBER (J), SHRI RAHUL BHATNAGAR:


    MEMBER (T)

    Filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the
    Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

    The petition filed under Section 7 was admitted.

    There is a default on the part of the Corporate Debtor (‘CD’) in repayment of an amount.
    Thus, the application filed by the Financial Creditor (‘FC’) to initiate Corporate Insolvency
    Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and
    Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to
    Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 is admitted.

    Mandatory Tags Keywords Phrases

    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Corporate Debtor, Financial Application to initiate


    Code, Insolvency and Creditor, Liquidator, Interim Corporate Insolvency
    Bankruptcy (Application to Resolution Professional Resolution Process against
    Adjudicating Authority) NCLT. the Corporate Debtor.
    Rules ,CIRP, Section 7,
    Rule 4

    Facts:

    1. A Company Petition is filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 along with rule 4 of the
    Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by
    Intec Capital Limited, the Financial Creditor, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency
    Resolution Process (CIRP) against SRD Management Company Private Limited, the
    Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was established on July 28, 2008, under the
    Companies Act, 2013, with its registered office in South Delhi, India. Thus, the Bench
    has jurisdiction over this matter.
    2. It was contended by the Financial Creditor that M/s Unitel Credit Private Limited was
    amalgamated into M/s Intec Capital Limited and it was approved by the Hon’ble High
    Court of Delhi in 2010. Intec Capital Limited granted two loan facilities totalling Rs.
    3,14,00,000 to M/s SRD Management Company Private Limited, with one sanctioned
    by Unitel Credit Private Limited. These loans were meant for purchasing assets and
    were disbursed in March 2010 with a 24-month term and 8.5% interest. The
    Corporate Debtor, however, started defaulting on payments, prompting a request for
    loan restructuring, followed by a settlement deed in October 2010. Despite the
    restructuring, the Corporate Debtor continued to default, leading to arbitration
    proceedings in 2012 and a subsequent settlement agreement in 2012. The Corporate
    Debtor made partial payments in January 2013. Default persisted, leading to a further
    settlement in September 2018, which rendered the previous settlement null and void.
    Consequently, a petition was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
    Code in 2018, seeking the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional, Mr.
    Piyush Moona, for resolution proceedings.
    3. It was contended by the Corporate Debtor that, the petition is considered time-barred
    due to the Financial Creditor's failure to specify the date of default in the petition,
    which is crucial, set at 30.05.2015. Moreover, it was argued that there was no prior
    acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor before 24.09.2018, and the
    acknowledgment made on 29.09.2018 occurred after the limitation period had already
    expired on 29.05.2018, rendering it ineffective. Furthermore, the Financial Creditor
    had previously filed two petitions for arbitral award enforcement with the High Court
    of Delhi, indicating forum shopping, making the current petition non-maintainable.
    Additionally, the documents presented by the Financial Creditor lacked the signature
    or execution by the Corporate Debtor, and the claimed default amount did not match
    the Corporate Debtor's account statement and credit entries. During arbitration
    proceedings, the Corporate Debtor was unrepresented by an advocate, and various
    details, including outstanding debt, interest on collateral deposits, and TDS
    certificates, were not provided by the Financial Creditor, leading to allegations of
    misuse and harassment in the debt recovery process.

    Issues:

    1. Whether the Application filed under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of CIRP valid?
    2. Whether the claim of the Financial Creditor can be admitted or not?

    Order:

    In this order, the Financial Creditor's petition is deemed complete and compliant with the
    law, establishing that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt exceeding the minimum
    amount required by section 4 (1) of the Code. As a result, the application for initiating
    Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor is admitted,
    and a moratorium under section 14 of the IBC is imposed from the date of this order until the
    completion of the CIRP or the approval of a resolution plan, or an order for liquidation is
    passed. Furthermore, an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is appointed, and the
    management of the Corporate Debtor is transferred to the IRP during the CIRP period. The
    IRP is expected to provide regular progress reports to the Adjudicating Authority concerning
    the CIRP.

    Cases Referred: NIL

    Cases Cited:

    1. Shailesh Sangani V. Joel Cardoso and Ors. [2019] CLA 48


    2. Mr. Vineet Khosla V. M/s Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors.,
    Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.441 of 2019
    3. Harkirat S. Bedi V. Oriental Bank of Commerce. Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 499
    of 2019, 8th May 2019.

    Industry: Legal, accounting, book-keeping and auditing activities; tax consultancy; market
    research and public opinion polling; business and management consultancy.

    Link to the Order/ Judgement:

    https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/order/3db5cd8fa06ae9db767260521f23b0df.pdf

    You might also like