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) 1569

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Prabhat Kumar, Technical Member, V.G. Bisht, Judicial Member
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Gstaad Hotels Private Limited – Respondent
C.P.(IB) No. 291/MB/2023 | I.A. 3705 OF 2023



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

The Tribunal affirmed that the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is valid upon determining the existence of debt and default, despite challenges to loan assignments.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor due to default in repayment of loans, totaling over ₹665 crores. The Tribunal admitted that defaults exist and confirmed initiation of proceedings. (Paras 1, 18)

(B) Nature of Evidence - The necessity of demonstrable evidence of debt and default to initiate CIRP was emphasized. Res Judicata was not applicable as the present application is based on distinct defaults. Corporate Debtor's arguments regarding alleged assignment challenge were deemed irrelevant to the current proceedings. (Paras 7, 9, 13)

(C) Moratorium - A moratorium was imposed on initiating proceedings against the Corporate Debtor during CIRP to protect the assets and facilitate resolution. (Paras 21)

Facts of the case:
Omkara Assets Reconstruction filed a petition claiming defaults by Gstaad Hotels in loan repayments and sought initiation of CIRP under IBC provisions. The Corporate Debtor denied liability, citing prior assignments and disputed the existence of debt.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found sufficient evidence of debt and default, dismissing the Respondent's claims regarding assignment and validating the Financial Creditor's position.

Issues: The primary issues concern the existence of a financial creditor, the validity of loan assignments, and the presence of defaults.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal clarified that the existence of debt remains irrespective of challenges to assignments; therefore, default allows for the initiation of CIRP.

Result: Petition admitted.

Table of Content
1. corporate creditor seeks initiation of cirp. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondent contests validity of creditor status. (Para 4 , 5)
3. tribunal establishes existence of default despite challenges. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. cirp initiation confirmed based on established defaults. (Para 18)
5. moratorium and procedural steps for cirp. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

ORDER

Per: Prabhat Kumar (Technical)

1. This Company Petition C.P. (IB) 291/2023 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 Gstaad Hotels Private Limited CIN:U55101MH2003PTC143481 ("hereinafter referred to as Respondent/Corporate Debtor").

2. The Applicant has claimed a default of total amount of Rs. 6,65,74,77,237/- (Rupees Six Hundred and Sixty-Five Crores Seventy- Four Lakhs Seventy-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-Seven Only) as on 27.02.2023. The date of default in respect of Loan & ECLGS facility is stated to be 11.11.2022.

3. The Applicant has submitted that on 26.12.2017, the Piramal Finance Limited had executed a loan agreement with the Corporate Debtor and Neo Capricorn Plaza Private Limited(“NEO”) 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. 450.00 Crores. accordingly, the following documents were executed by the Corporate Debtor in favor of the Applicant to secure the ECLGS Facility-1, 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 Security Trustee (for the benefit of the Lender):

a. First an 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 entered into between PCHFL and PHL Finvest Private Limited (“PHL”), {which subsequently ama

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