Page 460 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed under Sec 7
By Hon’ble NCLT Chandigarh Bench
of seven days. Notice of this petition was also directed to be issued to the respondent The 'Financial-

Creditor' also filed fresh account statements duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act with
the affidavit of Authorised Signatory of the bank.

11. The 'Corporate-Debtor' has also filed the objections in writing. It is stated that the petition deserves to
be dismissed as the petitioner did not comply with paragraph-7 of Part-V of the application prescribed

under the rules, requiring copies of the Entries in a Banker's Book in accordance with the Bankers Books
Evidence Act. 1891. It is averred that the 'Financial-Creditor' had not submitted the copies of Entries in a

Banker's Book in accordance with the aforesaid Act, The defect having been noticed by the Adjudicating
Authority when the matter was listed on 11.07.2017 seven days time was granted to the petitioner to
furnish the required documents. The defect could be removed on or before 18.07.2017 and there is thus

violation of the mandatory requirement of proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Code. It was
further stated that notice of the petition issued to the respondent for 21.07.2017 was received by the

'Corporate-Debtor' on 18.07.2017 The Tribunal directed the counsel for petitioner to supply certain
documents/affidavit to respondent No. 1 but the compliance has not been made.

12. On merits it was stated that the petitioner has concealed important and relevant facts from the
Tribunal in as much as the Corporate-Debtor' was sanctioned various loan facilities by the consortium

comprising of three banks i.e. State Bank of India, IDBI Bank and Punjab National Bank (petitioner). The
lead bank is State Bank of India but no approval to file this petition was obtained from either the State
Bank of India or IDBI Bank. However, the factum of grant of loan facilities and that the 'Corporate-

Debtor' committed default in making repayment of debt has not been disputed. It was rather stated that on
26.07.2017 the 'Corporate-Debtor' submitted an application to the petitioner bank for review-cum-
restructuring proposal which was received by the Chief Manager of the bank. The 'Corporate-Debtor' also

proposed to deposit an amount of ` 125 lacs. After some discussion it was verbally conveyed by the
officials of Bank that on such deposit by the 'Corporate-Debtor' the bank would restructure the loan

facilities by withdrawing the present application. It was further stated that the 'Corporate-Debtor' was in
the process of arranging funds and to deposit the aforesaid amount with the bank.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.

14. It was contended by learned counsel for the 'Corporate-Debtor' that the loan facilities were granted by

the consortium of three banks, with State Bank of India as the lead bank, the present application would
not be maintainable without getting approval of the other two banks. We find no substance in this
contention. The petitioner bank is undoubtedly a 'Financial-Creditor' qua the loans granted by it and

460