Page 558 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed under Sec 7
By Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench

 Finally, the illegal conduct/ Functioning coupled with avarice of Financial
Creditor's Director whose conduct and functioning alone resulted in the present sad state
of affairs and speculative litigation resorted to by Financial Creditor, with ulterior

Motives.

13) It is stated that Since there is a dispute between parties herein and there are claims and rival claims
pending adjudication before the competent civil court, it is not open for Financial Creditor to project M/S

VSS PROJECTS (PVT) LTD., either as insolvent or bankrupt; more particularly, when the proposed
Corporate Debtor is capable of paying OTS amount by selling some of the 17 flats and also ready to sell 6
flats in favor of Financial Creditor, as submitted above and also as pleaded in WS-cum-Counter Claim.

14) It is stated that the petitioner has initiated criminal case vide FIR No. 259 /2016 in CCS by fabricating

false evidence, i.e. letter dated 1/11/2016, against Corporate Debtor, 3 flat owners who purchased 3 flats
and also SBH that extended loan facility, apart from initiating proceedings U/S 138 NI Act and filing

Commercial suit COS: 1/2017 before the commercial court; disentitled Financial Creditor for any relief
from this Hon'ble Tribunal.

15) It is further alleged that the petitioner having not satisfied with the above, has filed the present
petition with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and documents. The above events confirm that

Financial Creditor wants to indulge in speculative litigation and somehow secure some order of
appointment of insolvency professional to ensure distress sale of 17 unsold Flats, so that the flats would
not fetch the prevailing market value and can grab the entire property of Corporate Debtor to realize his

ultimate goal of swallowing all the properties of Corporate Debtor costing around 10 crores for a mere
debt of 2.5 crores.

16) It is stated that the functioning of Financial Creditor is detrimental to survival of Rule of Law and

may not be entertained by this Honorable Tribunal in the interest of Justice.

17) It is stated that the petition is hopelessly premature to construe the Corporate Debtor either as
insolvent or bankrupt and also to initiate above proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016. The alleged default to repay even after the expiry request date of 3107-2016 was due to frustration
of contract by Financial Creditor and also failure to honor reciprocal promise by Financial Creditor, as
agreed on 31/03/2016; apart from changing stand / version to charge 50 % interest instead of agreed 24%;

while insisting to execute alleged MOU and AOS (which are concealed and suppressed before this
Hon'ble Tribunal). The alleged default when 4 cheques dated 14/11/2016 got bounced on 18/11/2016 is

558