The division judge bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson and Mr. Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) of the National Company Law Tribunal in the case of Amour Infrastructure LLP (Formerly known as Amour Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Digital Integrated Technologies Pvt. Ltd held that in order to prove the ingredient of Section 65 there has to be adequate pleadings and findings.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant took a loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with an interest rate of 24% p.a. However, the default was committed in the payment and the application was filed which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority’s finding that Section 65 of the IBC is attracted is baseless as disbursement of the loan has been admitted and partial repayment of the loan has also been made and the debt was due.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the entire loan amount has been paid. It was furthermore submitted that as stated in the loan agreement itself, namely Clause (h), a portion of the funds have undoubtedly been paid to the appellant and a portion to his son and his business at his direction.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that submissions made by the Respondent in this appeal that the application is malicious because the full amount has been paid and nothing is owed; however, the adjudicating authority's order makes no mention of this claim. Hence, the application is malicious.
It was furthermore observed that for proving the ingredient of Section 65 there has to be adequate pleadings and findings.
The decision of the Court:
Based on these considerations, the order of the Adjudicating Authority impugned cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
Case Name: Amour Infrastructure LLP (Formerly known as Amour Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Digital Integrated Technologies Pvt. Ltd
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson and Hon’ble Mr. Barun Mitra,
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 884 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2458 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Karan Luthra, Mr. Naman Gowda, Advocates.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jitin Singhal, Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocates.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
