SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1568

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Shri Prabhat Kumar, Technical, Shri V.G. Bisht, Judicial
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Neo Capricorn Plaza Private Limited – Respondent
C.P.(IB) No. 290/MB/2023 | I.A. 3704 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Applicant:Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajesh Kumar Shankar, Adv.

The tribunal established that evidence of default justified the initiation of CIRP under the IBC, despite the Corporate Debtor challenging the validity of the creditor.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Application filed by Financial Creditor, claiming default of over ₹120 crores - Corporate Debtor contests existence of debt and claims application is barred by res judicata - Tribunal finds evidence of default and absence of stay on proceedings from High Court - Application for initiating CIRP admitted with moratorium on corporate debtor's assets. (Paras 19 and 21)

(B) Moratorium - Legal effects - The moratorium prohibits any legal proceedings initiated against the Corporate Debtor and safeguards its assets from encumbrance during the CIRP period. (Paras 21)

Facts of the case:
The financial creditor filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for a substantial default on a loan amounting to over ₹120 crores.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the financial creditor proved the existence of a debt and default, establishing the grounds for initiating CIRP.

Issues: The primary issues included the existence of a valid creditor-debtor relationship and the alleged defaults on the loan amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the absence of a stay from the High Court on these proceedings was pivotal, emphasizing that the mere challenge to the Assignment Deed does not negate the existence of the debt.

Result: The petition for CIRP was admitted, enforcing a moratorium on the Corporate Debtor.

Table of Content
1. introduction of corporate insolvency resolution process (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against the initiation of cirp (Para 4 , 5)
3. observations and findings regarding defaults and application validity (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. decision on the admission of cirp (Para 19)
5. order of admission and moratorium (Para 20 , 21)

ORDER

Per: Prabhat Kumar (Technical)

1. This Company Petition C.P. (IB) 290/2023 is filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited CIN:U67100TZ2014PTC020363 ("hereinafter referred to as Applicant/ Financial Creditor"), seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Neo Capricorn Plaza Private Limited CIN:U55102MH2004PTC187649 ("hereinafter referred to as Respondent/Corporate Debtor").

2. The Applicant has claimed a default of Rs. 120,10,96,388/- (Rupees One Hundred Twenty Crores, Ten Lacs, Ninety-Six Thousand and Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Only) as on 27.02.2023. The date of default in respect of Loan & ECLGS facility is stated to be 15.10.2022.

3. The Applicant has submitted that on 26.12.2017, the Piramal Finance Limited had executed a loan agreement with the Corporate Debtor and Gstaad Hotels Private Limited (“Gstaad”) granting a loan facility Upto Rs. 600.00 crores (Rupees Six Hundred Crore), out of which the Corporate Debtor was granted a term loan of Rs. 100.00 Crores. accordingly, the following documents were executed by the Corporate Debtor in favor of the Applicant to secure the said facility, which was required to maintain in favour of the Security Trustee (for the benefit of the Lender) ("Security") to secure the Outstanding Amounts until the final maturity date, the borrower shall be required to maintain the following security as set out below in favour of the Secruity Trustee (for the benefit of the Lender):

a. First and exclusive charge by way of an equitable mortgage over CP Land and Crown Plaza Hotel under a memorandum of deposit of title deeds ("Crown Plaza MODT");

b. First charge by way of an equitable mortgage over JW Land and JW Marriott Hotel under a memorandum of deposit of title deeds ("JWM MODT"). It is clarified herein that a charge has been created in favour of Global Hospitality Licensing S.A.R.L. and such charge over the JW Land and JW Marriott Hotel in favour of Global Hospitality Licensing S.A R.L. will be modified to be a second charge pursuant to creation of a first charge in favour of the Lender;

c. First charge by way of hypothecation over the Receivables and the Escrow Accounts to be created under a deed(s) of hypothecation ("Deed of Hypothecation"). It is clarified herein that a charge has been created over the GHPL Receivables in favour of Global Hospitality Licensing S.A R.L. and such charge in favour of Global Hospitality Licensing S.A R.L. will be modified to be a second charge pursuant to creation of a first charge in favour of the Lender;

d. First and exclusive charge by way of pledge over the Pledged Shares under a share pledge agreement ("Share Pledge Agreement");

e. Corporate guarantee by ARHPL ("Corporate Guarantee");

f. Personal guarantee by the individual Promoters ("Personal Guarantee") and g. Demand promissory note executed by the Borrowers for the benefit of the Lender DPN").

3.1 On 06.04.2018, the Piramal Finance Limited and PCHFL were got merged pursuant to Order passed by this Tribunal and Piramal Finance Limited’s name was changed to Piramal Capital PCHFL The Financial Debt, in question, was disbursed by M/s Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (“PCHFL”), and consequent to merger, the Corporate Debtor became creditor of PCHFL.

3.2 By an Assignment dated 22.03.2019 and 24.06.2019 entered between PCHFL and PHL Finvest Private Limited (“PHL”), {which subsequently amalgamated into Piramal Enterp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top