Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member - (1.) The present Company Petition (which is herein after referred to as Company petition) bearing No. CP(IB)/19/7/HDB/2017 is filed by Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi, a financial creditor, (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner/applicant) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, by inter alia seeking directions to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution process, in the matter of GEOMETRIX LASER SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, (which is herein after referred to as ' Company') in accordance with the provisions of IBC, 2016; appoint Interim resolution professional, award cost etc.
(2.) The case was first listed on 22.02.2017, whereby Mrs. B.V.S. Lakshmi was present, and Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram accepted notice on behalf of Respondent and at the request of both the parties, the case was posted to 28.02.2017. On 28.02.2017, Mr. K. Arun Kumar appeared on behalf of Petitioner but none appeared for the Respondents. Subsequently, on 01.03.2017, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that due amount was not paid to the Petitioner till date, while the Learned Counsel for the Respondent denied the claim itself. The Bench directed the Learned Counsel for the Respondent to furnish any proof with regard to payment of claim in question, and adjourned the matter to 03.03.2017. Again on 03.03.2017, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent requested time, and finally on 08.03.2017 both the counsels argued and reserved for orders. Since the Tribunal cannot refuse time, when parties requested reasonable time to assist it, the case was adjourned on the above dates duly following principles of natural justice.
(3.) The brief facts of the case, as set out in Company petition along with material papers filed, are as follows: a) M/s. Geometrix Laser Solutions Private Limited, the Respondent Company, is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 on 5 the January, 2006 with the Registrar of Companies, A, P. Hyderabad presently having Authorised and paid up Capital of Rs. 3,90,00,000/-. b) The petitioner contends that the Company is liable to make payment to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 91,47,864/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Four only) together with Interest at rate of 18% per annum (calculated from the date of each disbursement until the date of re-payment) and legal costs incurred by the Petitioner on this behalf. c) The Petitioner, in support of her claim, relied upon the Company's Annual Audited Financial Statements filed with the Registrar of Companies to establish her claim spread over the three years period from March 2014 to March 2016. The petitioner has furnished the following details of her claims, which she claims Acknowledged Debts: (i) Debt owed as on 31/03/2014 The annual audited accounts of the Respondent Company for the year 2013-14 for the full set of audited financial statements discloses a sum of Rs. 38,74,767.00/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Seven hundred sixty seven) as being due to the Petitioner shown under the heading Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi. The sub-ledger in the name of Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi for the year 2013-14 shows the amount owed as Rs. 41,04,391.00/- (Rupees Forty one lakhs four thousand three hundred ninety one only). The Petitioner relies upon on the Sub-ledger (ignoring the error in the Unsecured Loans Schedule in the Balance Sheet) to establish her claim. So Petitioner claims Rs. 41,04,391.00/- (Rupees Forty One Lacs Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety One only) as due as on 31/03/2014. (ii) Debt owed as at 31/03/2015 The annual audited accounts of the Respondent Company for the year 2014-15 discloses a sum of Rs. 89,85,792.00/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two) as being due to the Petitioner herein under the heading Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi. The Sub-ledger in the name of Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi for the year 2014-15 shows the amount owed as Rs. 75,03,462.00/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Two only) represents what is owed by the Company to Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi group, comprising four persons. To that extent, the Petitioner relies on the sub-ledger (ignoring the error in the Unsecured Loans Schedule in the Balance Sheet) to establish her claim. Therefore the acknowledged debt of the Petitioner stands at Rs. 75,03,462.00/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs three thousand four hundred Sixty Two only) as on 31/03/2015. (iii) Debt Owed as at 31/03/2016 Similarly, the annual audited accounts of the Respondent Company for the year 2015-16 discloses a sum of Rs. 79,36,737/- (Rupees Seventy nine Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven hundred thirty seven only) as being due to the petitioner herein under the heading Unsecured Loans from Director. This is patently incorrect, as Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi is NOT a Director of the Company. Further, if we proceed from the acknowledged debt of Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi as on 31/03/2015 standing at Rs. 75,03,462.00/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Two only). d) The petitioner contends that during the year 2015-16, no repayments were made out of the said Rs. 75,03,462.00/- to the Petitioner. Whereas, the Petitioner advances the following sums on the following dates to the Respondent Company: Further, the Petitioner also claimed the following expenses: Consequently, the amounts owed to Petitioner as on 31/03/2016 ought to stand at: e) The Petitioner, therefore, contends that while the Audited Financial Statement of the Company as on 31/03/2015 correctly reflect the amounts owed on the Petitioner, the Audited Financial Statements as on 31.03.2016, are mischievously and wrongly conceived as Rs. 79,36,737.11/-. The difference of Rs. 12,11,127.00/- remains un-explainable. f) The petitioner contends that several other related transactions were incorrectly and mischievously shown as loans given/re-paid against several names, including those of Ms. Kalyana Hyma and Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi. None of these disclosures are genuine. All of these are fabricated statements in order to show that the Petitioner was paid all her dues. So the petitioner wants the Company put to strict proof of establishment of re-payments of loans to her during the FY 2015-16. g) As the Company did not pay the dues as mentioned above, she got issued a statutory notice dated 7th September, 2016 to the Respondent Company, under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 corresponding to Section 271(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 demanding it to repay the entire amount of Rs. 91,47,864.00/- with Interest 18% per annum failing which, it was warned that appropriate proceedings for winding up would be initiated. h) In pursuant to the above legal notice, the Respondent Company got issued a reply dated 26th September, 2016 through their counsels Sri. AV Raghuram that the Accounts of petitioner as on 31.05.2015 was history and, it has been repaid and or adjusted as desired by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner ceased to be a creditor of the Company and thus denied any dues to the Petitioner much less interest. i) Since the petitioner could not get any repayment of her dues, even after the said legal notice, the Petitioner has approached the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana and AP by filing Company Petition bearing C.P. No. 408 of 2016, under section 433(e) & (f) R/w. Sections 434(1)(a) & 439 of the companies Act, 1956 by seeking the following reliefs: a) That M/s. Geometrix Laser Solutions Private Limited, the Respondent herein, may be wound up by this Hon'ble court under the provisions of Sections 434, 435 & 436 the Companies Act, 1956. b) The Official Liquidator High Court, Hyderabad or some other fit and propel person be appointed as liquidator of the Respondent with all powers under the provisions of the Companies Act. 1956. c) That, pending disposal of the main company petition, the official liquidator attached to this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appointed as Provisional Liquidator of the Respondent Company i.e. Geometrix Laser Solutions Private Limited. However the above CP was withdrawn by the petitioner reserving her liberty to file a fresh petition before the Company Law Tribunal. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High court dismissed the Company petition as withdrawn by an order dated 13th December, 2016. Subsequently, the present petition is filed by seeking the relief as stated supra.;