Page 87 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed Under Sec 7
Hon’ble NCLT Principal Bench

23. It is pertinent to mention that the aforementioned amount of Rs. 3068,77,83,713, which has

wrongly been treated as principal amount in default itself constitutes about 65% of the total amount
alleged to be in default Sr 2 Part IV of the Application/Form 1. Thus, the alleged claim of the Applicant
suffers from blatant misrepresentations, exaggerations and are thus misconceived and liable to be

dismissed.

24. The Corporate Debtor then has given the detail facts relating to its financial position stating that

the Corporate Debtor became a stressed asset not because of any mismanagement/malfeasance/fraud by
the Company or its management but for the reasons attributable to the change in government policies,

orders passed by various courts and external global factors and also delay in adoption and approval of
S4A by the Joint Lender Forum. Then reference has been made to Coal Block iron ore mine and global
phenomenon of dumping of steel by China etc.

25. Before proceeding further, we may deal with CA No. 203(PB)/2017 filed on 17.07.2017. A copy
of the application stated to have been sent to the respondent on 15.07.2017. The application prays for

rectification of some errors in part IV, error in synopsis, page No. 5 & 6 of Form-1, page 142 of Annexure
P/6 and Annexure P/7 to the application as specifically mentioned in para 3 of the application. A further
request has been to take the amended synopsis and amended pages on record.

26. It is appropriate to mention that respondent in para 16 under the caption 'the application lacks
material particulars and the amount claimed are unsubstantiated' has raised objection to the discrepancies

occurring at pages 5 and 6 of Form-1 and the discrepancy in the figures of the amount claimed to be in
default and other things.

27. After hearing learned counsel for both sides on the application C.A. No. 203(PB)/2017, we are of
the view that the application for amendments deserves to be accepted for the reason that the application
was signed on 15.07.2017 and a copy of the same was supplied to the respondent. Objection by the

respondent were filed on 18.07.2017 and such objection would not have survived in view of the
amendment sought in the various pages. Therefore, the objection having being raised at least three days

later cannot be taken into account and the request for amendment made in CA No. 203(PB)/2017 warrants
acceptance.

28. In view of the aforesaid we allow the application and take the amendments on record.

87