IBC Section 95 application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-stamping and/or insufficient stamping of the deeds of Guarantee – State Bank of India Vs. Mamta Apparao – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:

(i) In the present case, the liability to pay the stamp duty on the above-referred Deeds of Guarantee is on the Respondent and not the Petitioner. Therefore, if the Respondent herself has not paid sufficient stamp duty on the above-referred Deeds of Guarantee, she cannot now resist this Petition on the ground that the aforesaid deeds have not been sufficiently stamped.
(ii) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not strictly apply to the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority while adjudicating an application u/s 95 read with Section 100 of the Code.
(iii) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr. (2017) ibclaw.in 02 SC, this Petition cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-stamping and/or insufficient stamping of the deeds of guarantee especially when the debt does not cease to be due and payable on account of such deficient stamping of documents when the default has otherwise been satisfactorily established from the records.

IBC Section 95 application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-stamping and/or insufficient stamping of the deeds of Guarantee – State Bank of India Vs. Mamta Apparao – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »