VEERAMACHANENI RAMA MOHAN RAO Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is arising out of an order dtd. 26/4/2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereafter referred to as 'NCLT '), by which the petition preferred under Sec. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter referred to as 'IBC, 2016 ') by the Bank of Maharashtra, has been admitted declaring moratorium under Sec. 14 of the IBC, 2016 and Insolvency Professional (IP) has been appointed. Various grounds have been raised in the matter and it has been stated that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the present petitioner committed default in making a payment of Rs.41,59,60,224.00(Rupees forty one crore fifty nine lakhs sixty thousand and two hundred and twenty four only) to the Bank of Maharashtra and the said Bank of Maharashtra submitted an application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor (CDR). The application was filed on 9/12/2020 for default of financial debt as on 19/11/2021 amounting to Rs.41,59,60,224.00 (Rupees forty one crore fifty nine lakhs sixty thousand and two hundred and twenty four only) against the present petitioner under Sec. 7 of the IBC, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 and the NCLT vide order, dtd. 26/4/2021, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, has admitted the petition declaring moratorium under Sec. 14 of the IBC, 2016 appointing the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to carry out the functions as contemplated under the IBC, 2016. The petitioner has not stated full facts before this Court and the record of the case reveals that while CIRP was going on, Sri Veeramachaneni Rama Mohan Rao, the then Managing Director of the respondent No.2, i.e., M/s.SVSVS Projects (Private) Limited on 9/4/2021 had submitted to Bank of Maharashtra a One Time Settlement (OTS) for settlement of loan account for a sum of Rs.26,29,04,544.00 (Rupees twenty six crore twenty nine lakh four thousand and five hundred and forty four only) and physically went to the Stressed Assets Management Branch, Hyderabad. However, the offer was not accepted by the Bank of Maharashtra and this fact itself reveals that the petitioner was very much aware of the CIRP. It has been also brought to the notice of this Court that after initiation of CIRP, the IRP on 30/4/2021 had made public announcement in Form-A in newspapers in compliance with the provisions of the IBC, 2016 and the Rules made thereunder and on 19/5/2021, the IRP has filed Form No.INC-28 in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs about the initiation of CIRP against CDR. The facts further reveal that the IRP has conducted Committee of Creditors (CoC) Meeting on 25/5/2021 through Zoom Webinar Application in which the petitioner was very much present and attended the meeting. The entire record of the meeting was sent to the petitioner on 28/5/2021. The second CoC Meeting was held on 21/6/2021 and the petitioner has again attended the meeting. The third CoC Meeting was held on 7/8/2021 and the petitioner has attended the said meeting also. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has very much participated in the process and is making lame excuse about his illness.

(3.) In the considered opinion of this Court, the NCLT has taken all steps to serve the present petitioner, he has very much appeared after issuance of notice and the only aim and object of the petitioner is to ensure that the process of recovery of the debt, which is about fifty crore rupees, is deferred/delayed on some pretext or the other.