Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) TA No.156/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 994 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/491/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. Sandhya & Co. New No. 12, Wallace Garden Second Street, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006, Tamil Nadu ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.157/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 995 of 2020/TR) and I.A. No.207/2022 Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/473/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. Sri Adinath Enterprises No.4, Kodambakkam High Road, Nugambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 Tamil Nadu ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.158/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 996 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/493/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. Jai Jinendra Enterprises No.4, Kodambakkam High Road, Nugambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 Tamil Nadu ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.159/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 997 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/476/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. Vijyalakshmi Enterprises New No.177, Old No.87, NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079 ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.160/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 998 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/472/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. V.S. Enterprises New No.177, Old No.87, NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079 ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.161/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 999 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/475/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. H.S. Syndicate New No.12, Wallace Garden Second Street, Thousand Lights Chennai – 600 006, Tamil Nadu ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.162/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 1000 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/474/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. Hemanth Mehta & Sons HUF New No.12, Wallace Garden Second Street, Thousand Lights Chennai – 600 006, Tamil Nadu ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.163/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 1001 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/477/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. Vipul Investment New No.12, Wallace Garden Road, Thousand Lights Chennai – 600 006 ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent WITH TA No.164/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 1002 of 2020/TR) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 in IA/494/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) In the matter of: M/s. Hemanth & Co. New No. 12, Wallace Garden Second Street, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006, Tamil Nadu ….. Appellant v.
V. Mahesh Interim Resolution Professional of Vasan Health Care Private Limited No.39/19, Aspen Court, 3rd Floor, 6th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
….. Respondent Present: For Appellant :
Mr. Pawan Jhabakh, Advocate. For Respondent/IRP :
Ms. Yajura Devi, Advocate.
JUDGEMENT
(Virtual Mode) [Per; Ms. Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)]: Common Order: TA157/2021 (Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.995/2020) (`Lead Case’): 1. Aggrieved by the `Impugned Order’ dated 13.10.2020 passed by `The Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – I, Chennai) in I.A.473/IB/2020 in CA/1/IB/2017, M/s. Sri Adinath Enterprises preferred this `Appeal’ under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, (hereinafter referred to as `The Code’) to the extent of the rejection of its `Claim’ amount.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the `Appellant’ submitted that based on the commercial understanding between the `Corporate Debtor’, and the `Appellant’ herein, the `Appellant’ had lent a significant amounts of money to the `Corporate Debtor’ i.e., Rs.4,90,00,000/- for the utilization and use by the `Corporate Debtor’ in its business activities; that the `Corporate Debtor’ had executed various documents evidencing the amounts `due and outstanding’, and also executed Promissory Notes, promising to pay the `Appellant’ on demand the aggregate amount of Rs.4,90,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a.; in addition to the Demand Promissory Notes, the `Corporate Debtor’ has also issued various letters undertaking to repay the entire amount with interest to the `Appellant’;
3. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the `Appellant’ that the term `Financial Debt’ is defined under Section 5(8) of the Code to mean a debt along with the interest, if any, which is disbursed against consideration for time value of money, and the `Appellant’ submits that the lending of the said amount was routed through the Promoter only upon the request of the `Corporate Debtor’, and therefore the amounts are `due and payable’ by the `Corporate Debtor’ through the `Appellant’. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the `Appellant’ that the `principal amount’ was lent to the `Corporate Debtor’, primarily with an understanding that the said amount would be used solely for the business operations of the `Corporate Debtor’. The Respondent in its communication dated 19.03.2020 categorically admits that the Promoter of the `Corporate Debtor’ had infused the amounts of money lent by the `Appellant’ herein which is confirmed and noted in the Books of Accounts of the `Corporate Debtor’. Learned Counsel for the `Appellant’ placed reliance on Annexures 5 to 9, in support of his contention that the amount was admitted by the `Corporate Debtor’ in the Bank Statements, Demand Promissory Notes, vide Letters confirming the balance in their Books, and in the Statement of Accounts for the Financial Years 2014- 2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The `Impugned Order’ has ignored the fact that the Respondent has not even on one occasion questioned the `nature of loan’ and the accompanying documents at the time of rejection of `Claim’ which concludes the sanctity of the document. The `Doctrine of Indoor Management’ is applicable to this case and the onus is not on the `Appellant’ to undertake any due diligence but it is for the Managing Director of the `Corporate Debtor’ to provide these documents and the same is to be taken at `face value’.
4. It is further contended by the Learned Counsel for the `Appellant’ that the Statutory Authorities have also confirmed in the Report that the Managing Director has acted on behalf of the Company and the balance in the Managing Director’s Account includes the amounts received by the Company from various third parties.
5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Arvind Pandian submitted that there is no privity of contract between the `Appellant’ and the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
