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

2023 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2000

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SUBHLAXMI INVESTMENT ADVISORY PRIVATELIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SAI INDUSTRIES LIMITED – Respondent
C.P. (IB) - 426/2023



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Pradeep Kumar
For the Respondent:YOUGENDER SINGH

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH (COURT-II)

Company Petition No. (IB)-426(ND)/2023 IN THE MATTER OF:

Shubhlaxmi Investment Advisory Private Limited Unit No. 111, ACY- Aggarwal City Square No.10, District Centre, Manglam Place, Sector-3 Rohini, Delhi-110085 … Applicant VERSUS Sai Industries Limited

302-3rd Floor, C-2/4, Community Centre Ashok Vihar, PH-2, New Delhi-110052 … Respondent Section: 7 of IBC, 2016 Order Delivered on: 11.01.2024 CORAM SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J)

SH. L. N. GUPTA, HON’BLE MEMBER (T)

PRESENT:

For the Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Jain Advs.

For the Respondent : Adv Yougender Singh

ORDER

PER: SH. L. N. GUPTA, MEMBER (T)

The present petition has been filed by Shubhlaxmi Investment Advisory Private Limited (for brevity, the ‘Applicant/ Financial Creditor’) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s Sai Industries Limited (for brevity, the ‘Respondent’).

2. The Respondent namely, M/s Sai Industries Limited is a Listed Company incorporated on 16.09.1991 with CIN L74999DL1991 PLC045678 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 302, 3RD Floor, C-2/4 Community Centre Ashok Vihar Phase-2, New Delhi-110052, which is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Authorized Share Capital of the Respondent Company is Rs.5,00,00,000/- and Paid-up Share Capital is Rs.2,96,759/- as per the Master Data.

3. It is stated by the Applicant that in 2022, the Respondent approached the Applicant for business assistance of Rs.1,04,00,000/- @ 10% rate of interest. The Applicant has further averred that, after considering the request (it) “..agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,04,00,000/-. And accordingly transferred a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- through Cheque/RTGS on 20.12.2022, further a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred on 21.12.2022, further purchased securities worth Rs.29,00,000/- from Financial creditor on 31.12.2022 and further a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was transferred on 03.01.2023 in the bank account by the Corporate Debtor maintained @ 10% interest per annum.” Both parties also entered into a Mutual Loan Agreement and when the Respondent failed to pay back the loan amount, as per the terms and conditions, a legal notice was sent to the Respondent to recall the Loan, but the Respondent failed to comply with the same.

4. The particulars of the total unpaid financial debt and the date of default as mentioned in Part IV of the application are reproduced below:

5. Thus, as per Part IV of the Application, the Applicant has claimed a debt of Rs.1,06,34,000/- as on 31.03.2023 (including principal amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with unpaid accumulated interest @ 8.25% per annum along with penal interest @ 2% per annum as on 16.01.2023 and Miscellaneous Expenses) and relied on 02.05.2022 as the ‘date of default’.

6. To prove the existence of financial debt, the Applicant has relied on the following documents:

i) A copy of the Board Resolution dated 25.05.2023 ii) A Copy of Balance/Amount Conformation statement.

iii) A Copy of Legal notice dated 29.04.2023 iv) A Copy of letter dated 30.09.2022 issued by the Applicant.

v) A copy of Statement of amounts of Financial Creditor from 2022-23

7. Basing on the aforesaid facts and documents, the Applicant has prayed for initiation of CIRP against the Respondent.

8. On issuance of the notice, the Respondent filed its reply and has admitted its liability towards claim of the Applicant.

9. During the hearing on 14.09.2023, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent again admitted the debt. In the backdrop, the parties were directed to file affidavits stating that the Petition is not a collusive one and the parties are not related with each other.

10. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, both parties filed their respective affidavits stating that

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top