Page 452 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed under Sec 7
By Hon’ble NCLT Chandigarh Bench
Mr. Grover has furnished the written communication dated 24.05.2017 in Form No. 2. It has been pointed

out that the fresh registration number has been allotted to Mr. Jalesh Kumar Grover by the Insolvency &
Bankruptcy Board of India of the year 2017-18. The written communication in Form No. 2 Is found in
order as it complies with all the necessary requirements and the respondent has also not raised any issue

on this aspect.

18. As per requirement of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7, the "Financial Creditor" has
produced abundant evidence of default. In the response filed by the "Corporate Debtor", the factum of the

facility as alleged in the application having been granted is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the
facility was granted to the extent of 80% of the value of invoices in terms of the agreement.

19. The objection raised by the "Corporate Debtor" about the petitioner having not been granted full
facility as agreed is absolutely untenable. This contention was raised on the basis of legal notice dated

01.11.2016 Annexure R-1 sent by the respondent It was stated in the objections to the present petition that
the petitioner established direct contract with the buyers of the respondent and received the entire

payment from them directly, but the payment has not been adjusted nor appropriate payment has been
released to the respondent.

20. The above is a bald assertion without any supportive document on record. There is even no
correspondence exchanged between the "Corporate Debtor" and the 'Buyers' to affirm the aforesaid fact.

The objections petition has not even been filed on affidavit. None of the persons authorised by the
"Corporate Debtor" in the resolution dated 12.07.2017 filed affidavit to support the assertions contained

in the reply/objections.

21. During the course of arguments, the main contention of the learned counsel for 'Corporate Debtor"
was that the petitioner could at best proceed against the buyers as the transactions were assigned to the
"Corporate Debtor". It is thus contended that in this way, the petitioner has assumed the character of

"Operational Creditor" of the buyers.

22. Learned counsel further submitted that as per clause 8 of the agreement, the petitioner had lien over
the relevant goods and the documents relating thereto for all sums due by the 'Seller' or by the 'Buyer'

under this Facility Agreement, the Bills of Lading issued with respect to the relevant goods and any other
contract relating to the relevant goods. Even if, goods were released without payment, the petitioner as an
"Operational Creditor" has to fall back upon the 'Buyers' of the assignment of the debt, as the debt has

been assigned to the petitioner

452