Join for updates
Skip to content
IBC Law Reporter
  • Home
  • About Us
  • IBC News
  • Webinars/Seminars
  • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
  • Resource
  • Contact Us
  • Ebook

The  COC has no role under the IBC and the Regulations regarding admission of claim/interest. The RP cannot be allowed to abdicate its responsibility of verifying the claims submitted by the parties before admitting the same-NCLT Mumbai

  • Post Author:admin
  • Post published:May 31, 2024

Moon Star Securities Trading &Finance Co. Ltd … Vs Raghuleela Builders Pvt.Ltd

IA/529/2024 IN C.P. (IB)/498(MB)2021

Facts: Application is filed to reject and/or modify and/or reverse Respondent Nos. 2 to 8’s claim for exorbitant and usurious interest and update the list of creditors and voting share of the committee of creditors of the Corporate Debtor to reflect the same.

Issue: Whether the application can be allowed?

Argument:

Applicant:

1. Counsel submitted that claims of Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have been admitted with exorbitant/extortionate interest rates which is prejudicial to the interest of the Applicant as it has in turn reduced the voting share of the Applicant. It was submitted that though the principal claimed amount of all the Financial Creditors stands admitted fully but it is the admission/grant of the exorbitant interest admitted by the RP which is detrimental to the interest of the Applicant.

2. It was submitted that the exorbitant interest rate on the claims admitted by the RP has substantially increased the voting share of the other Financial Creditors to the detriment of the voting share of the applicant. 

Respondent:

1. Counsel submitted that two resolution plans have already been placed before the COC which is in the process of considering the same. In addition, while arguing against the prayer being sought by the Applicant, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the application deserves to be out rightly rejected on the ground of delay

2. Counsel submitted that despite having received a detailed response from Respondent No. 1 on 01.05.2023, the Applicant chose to file the present I.A. in February, 2024 when the Resolution Plans have already been submitted for consideration by the COC. This itself proves that the Applicant was either not vigilant or had waived of his right to raise any objections. 

Decision: NCLT granted interim relief.

Rationale:

1. NCLT noted that matter requires further consideration with respect to the exorbitantly high interest and charges admitted in the case of Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 by Respondent No. 1/RP. Particularly when the Transaction Audit Report clearly mentions the rate of interest in case of YBL @ 14.40%. 

2. It held that is pertinent to note that the Applicant is a public sector bank which has agitated the issue in the month of April, 2023 and it is in the response of RP dated 01.05.2023 that the admitted interest rate of each of the financial creditors finds mention. In addition, the contention of the Respondent No.1/RP stating that the instant matter of ‘interest and charges’ falls within the ambit of COC is not legally tenable.

Order:

COC-Power_NCLTDownload

Read more articles

Previous PostIt is the duty of the RoC to ascertain before issuing Form No. STK – 1 that whether an Investigation or Inspection in respect of the subject Company is pending before any authority or before any forum. ROC cannot mechanically pass order under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 de hors the Rules framed there under-NCLT Chennai
Next PostThe National Company Law Tribunal has no authority to consider partition suit of immovable properties-Calcutta High Court
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Latest Posts

  • Distribution of accumulated cash lying in the bank account of the CD to the stakeholders | Section 53 & Regulation 42 of Liquidation Regulations
    August 11, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    July 16, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    July 15, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    July 13, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    July 10, 2021/
    0 Comments

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Get in Touch

IBC Law Reporter

Phone: +91 83989-94547
Email: support@ibclawreporter.in

www.ibclawreporter.in

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Contact Us





    Quick Links

    Home
    About Us
    Contact Us
    Ebook
    Our Recommendation

    Copyright 2025 - IBC Law Reporter | All Right Reserved
    Close Menu
    • Home
    • About Us
    • IBC News
    • Webinars/Seminars
    • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
    • Resource
    • Contact Us
    • Ebook