NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Nicco Corporation Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Technology Development Board - Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 360 of 2018
Decided On : 30-04-2019
Preference Shares - Debt Restructuring - Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016, Section 42 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016, Section 42; Companies Act, 1956, Section 80(1)(a); Companies Act, 2013, Section 55 - The court discussed the Debt Restructuring Agreement, Supplementary Agreement, and relevant sections of the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013. It interpreted the borrower's liability in case of default and the treatment of preference shares in the event of default, citing legal provisions and previous court decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The Technology Development Board filed an appeal against the rejection of part of its claim by the Liquidator during the liquidation of 'Nicco Corporation Ltd.' The dispute arose from the default in repayments and the treatment of preference shares under the Debt Restructuring Agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that in case of default, the borrower is required to pay the entire amount in terms of the original Loan Agreement without any remission, as per the Debt Restructuring Agreement and Supplementary Agreement. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Liquidator's argument.
Issues: The issues revolved around the default in repayments, treatment of preference shares, and the borrower's liability in case of default.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the Debt Restructuring Agreement and Supplementary Agreement to establish the borrower's obligation in case of default, citing relevant legal provisions and previous court decisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the borrower's liability to pay the entire amount in terms of the original Loan Agreement without any remission in case of default.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
1. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench passed an order for liquidation of ‘Nicco Corporation Ltd.’ (Corporate Debtor). During the liquidation, the respondent – ‘Technology Development Board’ (‘Board’ for short), Government of India, a ‘Financial Creditor’ filed its claim, part of which was rejected by the ‘Liquidator’. In view of the aforesaid rejection, the ‘Board’ filed an appeal before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 42 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 (for short, ‘the I&B Code’). The said appeal having allowed by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order dated 6th June, 2018 it has been challenged by the ‘Liquidator’.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.
The ‘Board’ provided two loans to the ‘Corporate Debtor’, namely-
(ii) Term Loan of Rs. 18.46 Crores under Loan Agreement dated 28th July, 1999 for Irradiation Project.
Security /charge were created separately for each of the two Term Loan Agreements. Deed of Hypothecation dated 12th December, 2000 in respect of loan amount of Rs. 18.46 Crores was created.
3. The ‘Corporate Debtor’ defaulted in effecting repayments and approached the ‘Board’ for restructuring the debt. By the ‘Debt Restructuring Agreement’ dated 24th March, 2004, the debt was restructured whereby, inter alia, the principal amount of Irradiation Project Loan of Rs. 18.46 Crores was agreed to be converted to redeemable preference shares as per Clause 4 coupled with firm binding obligation of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to redeem the shares in three instalments on specified fixed future dates by paying the principal amount and fixed accrued dividend amounts [Clause 4.3].
The accrued unpaid interest relating to the loan of Rs. 18.46 Crores was agreed to be paid after a moratorium of 2 years in 3 equal instalments [Clause 5.2(a)].
4. Clause 3.1(d) of the Debt Restructuring Agreement provides as follows:
5. The ‘Supplementary Agreement’ was reached between the parties on 19th January, 2011 whereby dates of redemption of shares and repayments were deferred/rescheduled. ‘Clause 1’ of the ‘Supplementary Agreement’ reads :
6. ‘Clause I’ of the said ‘Supplementary Agreement’ reads as follows:
7. In the aforesaid background the respondent made claim and taken plea that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ defaulted in effecting repayments as rescheduled thereby it became liable to pay in terms of the original Loan Agreement dated 28th July, 1999 without any remission. The Board, is a ‘Fin
Aditya Prakash Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Magikwand Media Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.