AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)
28.02.2023: This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) by which an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short ‘Code’) by L & T Housing Finance Limited (Financial Creditor) against Majestic Market Research Support Services Limited (Corporate Debtor) for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 3,25,00,837/- was admitted, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated and moratorium was imposed.
The only argument raised by the Appellant is that the loan was not taken by the Appellant as a co-borrower. It is submitted that it was a home loan, taken by Sandeep Bhatia on 26.03.2018 of a sum of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-, repayable in 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 3,34,708/- for the purchase of flat no. 1303, 13th Floor, F Block, Kanaka Park, Kher Wadi, Bandra, Mumbai – 51. It is also case of the Appellant that another loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 27.03.2017, repayable in 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 9,129/- which was also availed by Sandeep Bhatia. Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to the home loan agreement. He has submitted that clause 1.1(h) of the agreement defines as to who shall be the co-borrower. As per 1.1(h) co-borrower shall be the person named in the schedule hereto. He has then referred to the schedule appended with the agreement in which according to him the column of co-borrower is blank. He has also submitted that the home loan agreement has been signed by Sandeep Bhatia as an individual and the Corporate Debtor has nothing to do with the loan obtained by him.
On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that not only the home loan was applied by Sandeep Bhatia as an individual but the Corporate Debtor had also applied for the said loan under the signature of Sandeep Bhatia as a director. She has also submitted that the entire home loan agreement has the signatures not only of Sandeep Bhatia as an individual but also of the Corporate Debtor through director which signifies that the Company was a co-borrower.
Be that as it may, we have asked a precise question to Counsel for the Appellant as to whether the Corporate Debtor, while defending the application filed under Section 7 of the Code, has anywhere said that the Appellant was not a co-borrower or Sandeep Bhatia has put his signature as a director fraudulently in order to create the liability of the Company or the Company has ever taken any action against Sandeep Bhatia. Counsel for the Appellant could not give any answer.
Thus, from the perusal of the record, we have found that initially loan offer letter dated 27.03.2018 was signed by both Sandeep Bhatia as an individual and Sandeep Bhatia on behalf of the Corporate Debtor as a co-applicant and the revised loan offer letter dated 11.04.2018 was also signed by both of them as an applicant and co-applicant. Besides the aforesaid factor, the very fact that the entire home loan agreement was signed by Sandeep Bhatia as a director of the Corporate Debtor and no action has been taken ever by the Corporate Debtor against Sandeep Bhatia shows that the Corporate Debtor itself was a co-borrower/co-applicant for the purpose of taking home loan and the objection which has now been taken is just an afterthought.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.