AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor. The appellant, an erstwhile director of the Corporate Debtor, challenged the admission of the application. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought multiple adjournments to negotiate a One Time Settlement (OTS) with the Financial Creditor but ultimately proceeded to challenge the impugned order on merits.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the application under Section 7 of the IBC was maintainable given that the alleged date of default for repayment was during the prohibitory period under Section 10A of the IBC.
  2. Whether the admission of default by the Corporate Debtor prior to the COVID-19 prohibitory period negates the appellant's claim that the default occurred only on 31.08.2020.
  3. Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in admitting the application despite the appellant's contention regarding the timing of default and procedural issues concerning filing of replies.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The default date for repayment, as per Annexure 3 to the Debenture Subscription Agreement (clause 6), was 31.08.2020, which fell within the prohibitory period under Section 10A of the IBC, rendering the application inadmissible.
  • The Corporate Debtor was not allowed to file a reply before the Adjudicating Authority, and an application seeking liberty to file the reply was not considered.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The Corporate Debtor admitted the debt and default both orally and in writing before the Adjudicating Authority.
  • Letters dated 09.09.2021 clearly acknowledged default in payment of interest for the quarters ending September 2019 and December 2019, which predates the Section 10A prohibitory period.
  • The default did not occur during the COVID-19 prohibitory period (March 25, 2020 to March 25, 2021) and hence the application is maintainable.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the timeline of defaults and the applicability of Section 10A of the IBC. It noted that the admitted defaults in payment of interest occurred in September and December 2019, prior to the COVID-19 prohibitory period from March 25, 2020 to March 25, 2021. Therefore, the benefit of Section 10A, which bars initiation of insolvency proceedings during the specified period, was not applicable.

The Court further observed that the appellant's contention that default only arose on 31.08.2020 was contradicted by the clear admission of earlier defaults in the Corporate Debtor’s letter dated 09.09.2021 and oral admissions before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority had duly considered these facts and found the application under Section 7 to be maintainable and rightly admitted it.

Additionally, the Court noted the appellant's repeated requests for adjournments to negotiate a One Time Settlement, indicating that the debt and default were not genuinely disputed.

Holding and Implications

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting the Section 7 application. The direct effect is that the insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor will continue as admitted. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    mr. vishal agarwal v. ICICI PRUDENTIAL REAL ESTATE AIR-I

    NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

    PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

    Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1016 of 2022

    IN THE MATTER OF:

    Vishal Agarwal Erstwhile Director of Gagan I-Land Township Pvt. Ltd.

    …Appellant

    Versus

    ICICI Prudential Real Estate AIF-I & Anr. …Respondents Present:

    For Appellant: Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Mr. Diwakar Singh, Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr. Saurabh Jain,

    Advocates.

    For Respondents: Mr. Arind Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shahan Ulla and Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Manish Paliwal and Ms. Megha Yadav,

    Advocates for R-2.

    O R D E R

    23.01.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional has also appeared. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which application filed under Section 7 by the Financial Creditor has been admitted. On several occasions, when the appeal was taken up, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that he will approach the Respondent Financial Creditor for One Time Settlement and the adjournment was sought on 24.08.2022, 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022 and lastly on 25.11.2022.

    1

    2

    2. Today, when the Appeal was taken, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that he has already sent One Time Settlement proposal. Learned counsel for the Financial Creditor submits that proposal as submitted as on date is not acceptable to the Financial Creditor. Learned counsel for the Appellant thereafter proceeded with his submission on the merit challenging the impugned order.

    3. The principal submission which was pressed by learned counsel for the Appellant is that as per Annexure 3 to the Debenture Subscription Agreement, clause 6, the date of default for repayment occurs on 31.08.2020, which was during the prohibitory period under Section 10A of the I&B Code. Hence, the application itself was not maintainable and the Adjudicating Authority ought to have rejected the application. He further submitted that the Corporate Debtor could not file his reply and thereafter an application was filed before the Adjudicating seeking liberty to file reply, which was not considered.

    3. Learned counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant contends that before the Adjudicating Authority, during the hearing, it was clearly admitted on behalf of the Corporate Debtor that claim is admitted and further in the letters which was written by the Corporate Debtor on 09.09.2021 it was categorically mentioned that he admit default in payment of interest as on quarter ending September 2019 and December, 2019. Hence, the submission which is sought to be raised by learned counsel for the Appellant cannot be permitted to be raised. The Corporate Debtor admitted the debt and default in writing as well as orally.

    3

    He admitted the default and it was stated that due to COVID, he could not make payment in time and prayed for certain further relief.

    4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

    5. The Adjudicating Authority in its order impugned has dealt with the submission raised by learned counsel for the Appellant on the ground of application being barred by 10A and in Para b(vii) following has been observed by the Adjudicating Authority:

    "(vii) It is submitted that:

    (a) Admittedly, the default in payment of interest as aforesaid occurred on September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2019 viz. the last day of the quarters.

    (b) Any default in payment of interest is an express event of default under the terms of the DSA.

    (c) The period covered under section 10A of the IBC is March 25, 2020 to March 25, 2021. Clearly the default committed by the Corporate Debtor does not fall within the period prescribed under section 10A of the IBC. In the instant case the default was committed by the Corporate Debtor in September 2019, i.e., prior to the outbreak of the COVID - 19 pandemic. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a default during COVID period."

    4

    6. The Adjudicating Authority while noticing the submission of the parties have noted the relevant clauses and other materials on the record. While noticing the sequence of events and facts in Para 4 (xvii) the Adjudicating Authority noted as follows:

    "(xvii) By a letter dated September 9, 2021, the Corporate Debtor itself has admitted that he has failed to pay Interest for the quarters ending September 2019 and December 2019 thus acknowledging that it has defaulted in servicing its obligations under the DSA. Under the said letter, the Corporate Debtor requested the Petitioner to restructure the debt, capitalise and reduce the interest rate and to waive penal IRR on account of the pandemic. A copy of the letter dated September 9, 2021 is annexed to the Petition."

    7. The submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that as per Annexure-3 clause 6, the date of repayment of instalment is 31.08.2020 only is not acceptable. There being clear admission on behalf of the Appellant in default in payment of interest for the quarters ending September 2019 and December 2019, Appellant cannot be permitted to contend that default was committed only on 31.08.2020. Insofar as application being barred by 10A, benefit under Section 10A can be claimed by the application only when there is clear default during the prohibited period. The said benefit cannot be claimed by the Appellant by ignoring the admission of default which was prior to 25.03.2020. There being clear admission in the present case, in letter dated September 9, 2021 where the Corporate Debtor itself has admitted that he has

    5

    failed to pay interest for the quarters ending September 2019 and December 2019 thus acknowledging that it has defaulted in servicing its obligations under the DSA.

    8. We, thus, are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has after considering all relevant facts and after finding debt and default has admitted the application. The fact that before this Tribunal, the Appellant has taken four adjournments for proposing OTS and get settle with the Bank itself indicate that debt and default is not disputed. We, thus, are of the view that there is no merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

    [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

    [Barun Mitra]

    Member (Technical)

    Archana/nn

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    mr. vishal agarwal v. ICICI PRUDENTIAL REAL ESTATE AIR-I
    (Jan 23, 2023)