Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(9)Since the petitioners have raised the issue regarding jurisdiction of NCLT, this Court probably had issued notice to the respondents. (10)After notice to the respondents, the 1st respondent/Bank has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent has also filed a Report. (11)In the report, the 2nd respondent stated that the Resolution Process is at the advanced stage. It is also stated in the report that the Resolution Professional has made an enquiry and pointed out several irregularities against the petitioner after a Forensic Audit and the report of the Auditor. (12)In the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, it is pointed out that the petitioners have admitted their default and the outstanding liability of the Corporate Debtor in every proposal submitted by them for OTS. The 1st respondent in the counter affidavit raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Dhammanagi and Sanu Developers https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Private Limited and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2020 [1] MLJ 65]. It is further contended by the 1st respondent/Bank that the petitioners have admitted the default as per the statement of Accounts from the Bank. It is also contended by the 1st respondent that the liability as on the date of filing the petition before NCLT, i.e., 29.12.2023, is Rs.78,85,09,547.45p. and the liability has now grown to Rs.92.26 Crores as on 04.03.2024. Referring to the facts and conduct of the petitioners, it is stated in the counter affidavit that there is no bona fide in the writ petition and the purpose of the writ petition is to stall the proceedings before NCLT for no genuine cause.