Kewal Krishan Sharma Vs Navneet Gupta (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that the contractual grace period did not postpone the “occurrence” of default, it merely gave the debtor additional time to rectify it before triggering the contractual consequences. Thus, application u/s. 7 not being barred by section 10A is rightly admitted.
Facts- The present appeal has arisen from the impugned order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition filed by U.V. Asset Reconstruction Company Limited/ Financial Creditor (FC) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Majestic Hotels Limited (Corporate Debtor) and appointed Mr. Navneet Gupta, as Interim Resolution Professional, who is Respondent No. 1 here.
Conclusion- In the present case, the material facts are undisputed. The January 2020 instalment of 95,91,034 became due on 31.01.2020, of which only Rs. 32,52,013 was paid. The remaining amount of Rs. 63,39,021 was not discharged within the 45-day cure period ending on 16.03.2020. Hence, by 01.02.2020, there was a clear non-payment of a due amount. The contractual grace period did not postpone the “occurrence” of default, it merely gave the debtor additional time to rectify it before triggering the contractual consequences.
