# Iin the matter of Sri Murugarajendra Oil Industry Private Limited C.P.(IB) No. 228-BB-2019

> NCLT judgment dated 2019-07-04. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLT-02668. The case involves a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 4 Jul 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLT-02668
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/iin-the-matter-of-sri-murugarajendra-oil-industry-private-limited-cpib-no-228-bb-aee78c98

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, read with Rule 4 of the I&B(AAA) Rules, 2016, by Suraksh RaviKumar, the Petitioner/Financial Creditor, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Sri Murugarajendra Oil Industry Private Limited, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor allegedly defaulted on a payment of Rs. 13,73,57,001/- which includes principal amount and interest. The consortium of State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore had executed a Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 11.05.2012 in favour of Corporate Debtor sanctioning working capital facility, of Rs.34.50 Crores towards cash credit and Rs.140.25 Crores towards non-fund

…

## Facts

Suraksh RaviKumar, the Petitioner/Financial Creditor, filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, seeking to initiate CIRP against M/s. Sri Murugarajendra Oil Industry Private Limited, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor, due to a default of Rs. 13,73,57,001/-. A consortium of State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore had extended working capital facilities to the Corporate Debtor, with the Petitioner acting as a guarantor and mortgaging properties to the banks. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on repayments, leading the banks to issue notices to the Petitioner. The Petitioner paid Rs. 12,68,76,643/- to Edelweiss Asset Re-construction Company Ltd. and requested the Corporate Debtor to repay this amount, but the Corporate Debtor expressed inability to do so.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Petitioner should be granted permission to withdraw the Company Petition with the …

**Ratio:** The Tribunal has the discretion to allow the withdrawal of a petition, especially if

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal considered the petitioner's request and the fact that notice had not been

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation involves the Tribunal's power to permit withdrawal of a

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rajeswara Rao…; Ashok Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Suraksh Rav…
- **Respondents:** Murugarajendra…

## Timeline

- **2012-05-11 — Working Capital…**: Consortium of State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore executed a Working…
- **2013-05-25 — Notice under Section…**: Notice issued to the Petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/iin-the-matter-of-sri-murugarajendra-oil-industry-private-limited-cpib-no-228-bb-aee78c98