Disposed

In the matter of E Complex Private Limited IA-537(MP)2021 in CP(IB)-563-9-AHM-2018]

NCLT18 Oct 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interim application by SKIL Infrastructure Limited challenging the Resolution Professional's partial rejection of its claim during the CIRP of E-Complex Pvt Ltd, disputing the admitted amounts and outright rejections regarding invocation of securities and remittances.

What did the court decide?

The order records the submissions and the bifurcated claim status without granting specific interim relief documented in the text.

In the matter of E Complex Private Limited… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | NCLT (2023)

¶1

IA/537 (AHM)2021 in [CP(IB)/563/9/AHM/2018]

¶2

Appearance:

¶3

For Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Monaal Davawala, Adv. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Adv. (Sr. No. 117-118)

¶4

For Respondent: Ms. Hirva Dave, Adv. for Mr. Jaimin Dave, Adv.

¶5

For the CoC : Mr. Manish Bhatt, Sr. Adv. a.w.

¶6

Mr. Yuvraj Thakore Adv.

¶7

For the RA : Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala, Sr. Adv. a.w. Mr. Kunal Vaishnav Adv.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The present application has been filed by the applicant SKIL Infrastructure Limited against the partial rejection of its claim of financial debt in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) of the corporate debtor.

¶10

The corporate debtor E-Complex Pvt Ltd was admitted in CIRP vide order dated 09.12.2020 in CP(IB) 563 of 2018. Following that the applicant had filed its claim amounting to Rs 37,87,42,125/- along with 16 % interest thereon. The RP has, however, admitted its claim to the extent of Rs 21,37,53,928/-.

¶11

The applicant is one of the group companies of SKIL Group which were erstwhile promoters of Reliance Naval and Engineering Limited (‘RNEL’) (then known as Pipavav Defense & Offshore Engineering Limited) and its 100% subsidiaries including the corporate debtor.

¶12

As stated in the application, the applicant as a promoter of the RNEL (then known as Pipavav Defense & Offshore Engineering Limited) and in turn of the corporate debtor had furnished certain securities for and on behalf of the corporate debtor in respect of the financial assistance aggregating to Rs 130 crores availed by the corporate debtor from ECL Finance Limited, JM Financial Products Limited, India Infoline Finance Limited (IIFL), Religare Finvest Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ RFL” ) and SREI Infrastructure and Finance Limited. The control over these companies RNEL (then known as Pipavav Defense & Offshore Engineering Limited), and its subsidiaries

¶13

¶14

IA/537 (AHM)2021 in [CP(IB)/563/9/AHM/2018]

¶15

(Including Corporate Debtor) had shifted to Reliance Infrastructure Limited and Reliance Defense System Private Limited (referred to as Reliance Group ) as per the purchase agreement dated 4^th March 2015. It is submitted that as per the relevant clause of the said purchase agreement, the Reliance Group was obliged to ensure the release of the securities furnished by the SKIL Group within three months upon change in management, however, that was not done and in the event of default committed by the Reliance Group the said lenders had invoked certain shares of RNEL (then known as Pipavav Defense & Offshore Engineering Limited) owned by the applicant and pledged by it as security for the loan availed of the corporate debtor. The table below reflects the break-up of its total claim of Rs 37,87,42,125/- as stated in the application:

¶16

Sr. No.	Nature of claim	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	On account of the invocation of securities by lenders of the corporate debtor	35,52,65,806
	India Infoline Finance Limited	20,29,13,924
	ECL Finance Limited	1,11,20,795
	Religare Finvest Limited	14,12,31,087
2.	On account of various remittances made by the applicant to the corporate debtor	94,89,842
3.	On account of re-imbursement of expenses	1,39,86,477
	Grand Total	37,87,42,125

¶17

In its reply the RP has stated that he did receive a claim from the applicant on 23.02.2021 amounting to Rs 37,87,42,125/- along with 16% interest thereon, however, after verification and seeking certain clarification he admitted the claim to the extent of Rs 21,37,53,928/-. The table below reflects the details of the amount claimed and admitted/rejected by the RP in respect of the invocation of securities by the concerned financial creditors and in relation to the remittance etc.

¶18

¶19

IA/537 (AHM)2021 in

¶20

[CP(IB)/563/9/AHM/2018]

¶21

Sr No.	Particulars	Amount Claimed	Amount Admitted	Remarks of RP
1.	Invocation of Securities by India Infoline Finance-IIFL	20,29,13,924	20,26,45,917	The amount is admitted on the basis of verification of Credit notes of IIFL submitted and as per books of accounts of Corporate Debtor. The rejected amount is Rs. 2,68,007/- only.
2.	Invocation of Securities by ECL Finance	1,11,20,795	1,11,08,011	The amount is admitted on the basis of verification of Credit notes of IIFL submitted and as per books of accounts of Corporate Debtor. The rejected amount isRs12,784/-only.
3.	Invocation of Securities by Religare Finvest Ltd.	14,12,31,087	-	The amount as claimed by the Applicant could not be reconciled with the Credit note of Religare Finvest Ltd, as the same were not made available, hence the amount was rejected.
4.	Claim in relation to A various remittances SKIL to ECPL between Aug-2014 to Sep- 2016	94,89,842	-	The applicant was the promoter of the Corporate Debtor and various transactions were entered between the
5.	Claim in relation to various remittances by SKIL to ECPL between June- 2012 to May 2017	1,39,86,477	-	Corporate Debtor and the Applicant during that period, the nature of such transactions entered, end use of such fund transferred were not clear and not provided other than copy of Ledger extract. Hence such amount of claim was notadmitted.

¶22

In the matter of E Complex Private Limited IA-537(MP)2021 in CP(IB)-563-9-AHM-2018]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In the matter of E Complex Private Limited IA-537(MP)2021 in CP(IB)-563-9-AHM-2018]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases