Page 47 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed Under Sec 7
Hon’ble NCLT Principal Bench

and he then promised to repay the loan by March, 2015. The `Financial Creditor' again extended the time

and even the promises made at Hong Kong on 18.05.2015 went in vain. There is correspondence
/promises for payment from 08.06.2015 to June, 2016. On 07.06.2016, the 'Financial Creditor' sent a
notice dated 07.06.2016 which was duly received by the `Corporate Debtor' on 08.06.2016.

3. The 'Financial Creditor' first filed a Company Petition before the Hon'ble High Court but on
account. of technical defect pointed out. by the Registry, the Company Petition was withdrawn. Then on

14.09.2016, the 'Financial Creditor' sent a notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956
requesting the `Corporate Debtor' to pay the entire outstanding amount with interest within three weeks,

which was duly received by the `Corporate Debtor' on 15.09.2016.

4. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the loan amount has been admitted in the email dated

15.09.2014, 19.05.2016, 08.06.2015, 22.11.2015 and 20.01.2016, the amount has not been paid as is
evident from various emails and the promises were made for repayment. In pursuance to Order dated
28.04.2017, the petitioner-`Financial Creditor' has filed audited Financial Statement for the year 2012-13,

2013-14 and 2014-15. A copy of the master data has also been filed. The 'Financial Creditor'-petitioner
has further filed a copy of proof of service with the tracking report of the courier company. All these
documents have been placed on record vide Application dated 04.05.2017 and accordingly the same are

taken on record.

5. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and the claim made by

the 'Financial Creditor' goes un-rebutted.

6. We have heard learned Counsel at some length. At the outset, we raised a query as to how a

shareholder can be a `Financial Creditor'. In response to the aforesaid query, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on a part of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of NCLT,
Mumbai in the case of Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd. v. Neelkanth Township and Construction Private

Ltd. (CP No. 69/165BP/NCLT/MAII/2017, decided on 21404.2017). The view taken by the Mumbai
Bench is that in his capacity as a 'Financial Creditor'-petitioner has locus standi to initiate proceedings

under the Code particularly when there is no bar. We agree with the aforesaid view.

7. The facts in the present case show advancement of loan, its acknowledgement and the default.

The documents on record answer the prescription of the Code and is in accordance with the provisions of
Section 7. It is complete in all respects and therefore, the petition warrants admission.

8. For the reasons afore-mentioned, this petition is admitted. Mr. Navneet Kumar Jain, Registration
No. IBBI/IPA-003/IPN00004 /2016- 17/ 10023 is appointed as Interim Resolution Professional as

47