Page 790 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed under Sec 7
By Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi-II Bench
The amounts given by Petitioner no.1 Dr. Shilpa Gupta to Greater Noida towards liquidating the

outstanding liability of the Corporate Debtor has been given in Para no.9 of the petition.

4. It is submitted by the Financial Creditors that the aforesaid debt, which was agreed to be returned with

interest of 12%, is still outstanding and despite verbal assurances, the Corporate Debtor has failed to
repay either the principal amount or the interest thereon despite legal notices dated 09.01.2017 and
24.01.2017.

5. The Respondent/ Corporate Debtor on putting in appearance has denied any liability. It is their case
that mother-in-law of Petitioner no.1, Mrs. Kumkum Varshney, was a director in the company and had

manipulated the records. Allegations are also made that the brother-in-law of Petitioner no.1 is a partner
in the Chartered Accountant firm handling the filing of statutory records of the Corporate Debtor and

therefore cannot be relied upon.

6. The Respondents dispute the alleged debt or the factum of the payments made by the Petitioners for

and on behalf of the Corporate Debtor to GNIDA. It is their case that various criminal proceedings have
been initiated against the petitioners and/or their relatives. Further, the amounts claimed are patently time
barred.

7. A perusal of the averments made in the petition support the submissions of the Ld. Counsel in respect
of the debt claimed in Para no.8 of the petition by Petitioner no.2. Having been paid between the period

01.10.2012 and 05.02.2013, we find nothing on record that would extend the limitation to recover the
same. The petitioners have tried to rely upon the Income Tax Returns filed by the Corporate Debtor for
the assessment year 2014-15 86 2015-16. These Income Tax Returns do not specify that the short term

borrowings of over 8 crores includes the loans alleged to have been given by the Petitioners herein. The
Financial Statements filed the Corporate Debtor with the RoC also do not reflect the loans given by the
petitioners so as to accept them as acknowledgment of a debt for enhancing the period of limitation. The

said documents are therefore of no help to the Petitioners for the purpose of extending limitation. We
therefore do not find that the amounts specified in Para no.8 of the petition are legally recoverable debts.

8. With respect to the liability of Rs.10 lacs, specified in para no.9 of the petition given by Dr. Shilpa
Gupta (Petitioner no.1) on 25.02.2015, the petitioners have been able to satisfy that the same is a legally

recoverably financial debt. The Bank records corroborate that the amount for the Demand Draft in favour
of GNIDA had been prepared from the account of the Petitioner no.1 and tendered on behalf of the
Corporate Debtor, thereby creating a financial liability on the Corporate Debtor to repay the same to

petitioner no. 1 . Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has tried to raise the issue of filing of FIRs and

790