The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has found that date of default has been noted in the NeSL portalon a date which is much prior to Section 10A period and held that petition under section 7 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code ( IBC )can be admitted.
Mobile Constructions Private Limited, the applicant has been filed against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which a petition under 7 of the code was dismissed. An amount of loan was advanced by the financial Creditor to the corporate debtor with a condition that the corporate debtor would pay interest on the amount on a half yearly basis at the rate of 12% per annum.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The corporate debtor committed default. Demand notices were issued by the financial creditor claiming the due payment but no response was given.In proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. Even in proceedings before this tribunal, the respondent did not contest their case despite giving multiple opportunities therefore the respondent was proceeded ex-parte.
The tribunal observed that it is not necessary that a financial debt can be provided only by a written agreement. In Agarwal Polysacks Limited Vs. K.K. Agro Foods and Storage Limited 2023, the tribunal held observed that if the transaction can be proved from other materials on record, requirement of written financial contract is not a pre-condition for proving debt.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
It was viewed that the Adjudicating Authority was not justified in determining the date of default on its own without going through the date of default provided by the Appellant.As claimed by the Petitioner, the loan was repayable within one year and payment of interest @ 12% per annum was to be made on half yearly basis and, as per the claim of the Petitioner, the first instalments was due on 10.10.2019, which is set to be the first date of default.
The tribunal rejected the argument that the date of default would be considered when the demand or recall notice was issued that is July 20, 2020 and observed that the petition under section 7 of the code was filed in August, 2023 and the date of default as claimed by the appellant is October 10, 2019 i.e. the date on which the first instalment of half yearly interest became due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant.
Based on the above, the tribunal noted that the case is squarely covered by the above judgment. It observed that the liability to pay interest had occurred prior to Section 10A period, continues in the 10A period, and also exists beyond the 10A period. Hence, the Appellant cannot be barred under Section 10A to file proceedings under Section 7.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The tribunal observed that date of default has been noted in the NeSL portalon a date which is much prior to Section 10A period. The default, which is much prior to the 10A period, becomes an admitted fact as it is not challenged by the Respondent, since they neither appeared before the Adjudicating Authority nor before this Appellate Tribunal. So, it can be concluded that the default date is much prior to Section 10A period.
While allowing the appeal, the two member bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra( Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) observed that “the determination of any other date of default by the Adjudicating Authority, on the basis of the initial demand notice, cannot be justified on the basis of the facts of the case. Therefore, we cannot agree with the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the date of default falls within the 10A period.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
