State Bank of India vs Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

01.06.2023: This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, Court No. 1) by which an application filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Appellant (Financial Creditor) for the resolution of a debt of Rs. 1,89,41,55,485/- has been deferred with the following observations “20. In view of the above, we considered the submissions of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the corporate debtor. The additional written submissions filed by the corporate debtor are supported by some documents. They show that very recently the corporate debtor has paid a debt of Rs.2 crore to ICICI Bank (the last payment of Rs.21,50,000/- made on 30.06.2022). It has deposited a sum of Rs.6 crore in the loan account of M/s. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. towards the part payment of the settlement. There are thousands of employees and workmen working with the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor has generated Revenue of Rs. 175 crores by the sale of krishidhan seeds in the last year. No doubt, the debt payable to the SBI itself is huge. But the facts which are placed before us by the corporate debtor make us think that it is not proper for us to admit the corporate debtor in CIRP at once. We do not wish to reject this application also. In our considered opinion, the management of the corporate debtor is trying hard to take the company out of the debt trap. We must give them some time. We believe their intention to settle the dues with other creditors. Hence, instead of admitting the corporate debtor in CIRP or rejecting this application, we think it proper to keep this proceeding in abeyance for six months from today. We make it clear that if the corporate debtor fails to settle the due debts, we will pass further orders. We further direct the Corporate Debtor not to sale the mortgaged assets of the Corporate Debtor to SBI without consent of the State Bank of India.”

Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that despite the fact that the Respondent have been given a period of six months to resolve the debt the Respondent failed to resolve it.

We have found from the perusal of the record that the Tribunal itself directed the registry to put up the case after expiry of six months, therefore, the present appeal appears to be misconceived. Thus, without making any observation about the merit of the case, the appeal is hereby disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal to take up the matter on the appearance of the party before it in respect of the issue as to whether the application under Section 7 has to be admitted or not to be admitted.

At this stage, Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that the application, under Section 7, was filed in the year 2018 and the matter has even reached once up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well, therefore, he has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to conclude this matter in a time bound manner.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal seized of this matter, is directed to complete the proceedings as early as possible but preferably within a period of one months from the date of appearance of the parties before it.

The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16^th June, 2023.