The appeal was filed by Shankar Kashid, the suspended director of Shivani Flexipack Limited, challenging the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which admitted the Corporate Debtor into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on an application filed by Intec Capital Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The dispute arose from a loan facility extended by Intec Capital Limited to Shivani Flexipack Limited for purchasing machinery from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. The appellant argued that the NCLT failed to consider the complex transactional dynamics and alleged collusion between Intec Capital Limited and Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited, leading to an
…Shivani Flexipack Limited (Corporate Debtor) obtained a loan of Rs. 1,66,40,134 from Intec Capital Limited (Financial Creditor) to purchase lamination machines from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. The loan agreement was formalized on 18.01.2012, with a repayment schedule of 60 monthly installments. As security, Shivani Flexipack provided post-dated cheques and collateral. Intec Capital disbursed Rs. 45,00,110 directly to Shivani Flexipack and Rs. 1,21,40,024 to Polygraph Printing Technologies. Following a ban on Gutkha/Pan Masala products in July 2012, Shivani Flexipack requested changes in the machinery specifications. The Appellant (Shankar Kashid) claims that Intec Capital prematurely disbursed the entire loan amount in violation of the agreed terms.
…Sign in to view the parties.
Intec Capital Limited sanctioned a loan…
Formal loan agreement executed between Intec…
The appeal was filed by Shankar Kashid, the suspended director of Shivani Flexipack Limited, challenging the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which admitted the Corporate Debtor into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on an application filed by Intec Capital Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The dispute arose from a loan facility extended by Intec Capital Limited to Shivani Flexipack Limited for purchasing machinery from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. The appellant argued that the NCLT failed to consider the complex transactional dynamics and alleged collusion between Intec Capital Limited and Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited, leading to an
…Shivani Flexipack Limited (Corporate Debtor) obtained a loan of Rs. 1,66,40,134 from Intec Capital Limited (Financial Creditor) to purchase lamination machines from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. The loan agreement was formalized on 18.01.2012, with a repayment schedule of 60 monthly installments. As security, Shivani Flexipack provided post-dated cheques and collateral. Intec Capital disbursed Rs. 45,00,110 directly to Shivani Flexipack and Rs. 1,21,40,024 to Polygraph Printing Technologies. Following a ban on Gutkha/Pan Masala products in July 2012, Shivani Flexipack requested changes in the machinery specifications. The Appellant (Shankar Kashid) claims that Intec Capital prematurely disbursed the entire loan amount in violation of the agreed terms.
…Intec Capital Limited sanctioned a loan…
Formal loan agreement executed between Intec…