Case Law Details
Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (NCLT Delhi)
NCLT held that Respondent being an entity which issued ‘Letter of Comfort’ cannot be treated as proper Respondent in this matter, more particularly ‘Corporate Debtor/Corporate Guarantor’ within the framework of IBC, 2016. We are of the view also that there is neither any “operational debt” nor the Respondent is a Corporate Guarantor/Corporate Debtor. Therefore, Section 9 application is not maintainable on facts as well as law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
1. We have heard the submissions made by the Counsel for the Applicant. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Corporate Debtor has executed a Comfort Letter dated 17.04.2018. On examination of the Paper-book it transpires that in response to notice under Section 8 of IBC, 2016 issued by the Applicant, the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) has replied vide Para 5 & 6 as under:-
5.”As apparent from the facts narrated above, at no point in time did ASF assume any repayment obligations towards SPCPL, not even in the capacity of a ‘Guarantor’ in terms of the Comfort Letter, as sought to be alleged by SPCPL in the demand Notice. The relevant portion the Comfort Letter is extracted hereunder for reference:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
