2021 (6) TMI 219 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Interim direction to allow the petitioner to operate its bank account - siphoning off of funds while CIRP proceedings are ongoing - unfreezing of attached Bank Accounts - HELD THAT - It is apparent that there was business relation between the petitioner-company and the NPIL, which is evident from the various documents annexed to the petition. Only question raised in this FIR is that the money was transferred by the suspended CMD without any authority, inasmuch as, the entire state of affairs of NPIL was vested with respondent No. 2, who has been appointed as the resolution professional. Only incriminating allegation against the petitioner is that the suspended CMD has personal interest in the petitioner-company being an associate company, which is however, a disputed fact required to be investigated by the police. Freezing of all the bank account as indicated would certainly cause unnecessary hardship, which may not be necessary for the investigation of the present FIR in view of the nature of accusation made therein as well as in view of the offer made by the petitioner to furnish a bond - the petitioner is entitled to the interim relief as sought for. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Interim direction to operate petitioner's bank account and unfreeze creditor's account due to FIR allegations.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking permission to operate its bank account and unfreeze its creditors' accounts, which were frozen following an FIR lodged by respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner had a financial relationship with National Plywood Industries Ltd. (NPIL) and was owed a substantial amount by NPIL. An insolvency proceeding was initiated for NPIL, with respondent No. 2 appointed as the resolution professional.

3. Despite receiving ?32.50 lakhs from NPIL towards outstanding dues, there was still an outstanding amount due. An FIR alleged that the suspended CMD of NPIL transferred ?32.50 lakhs to the petitioner's account without authority, leading to the freezing of accounts.

4. The petitioner argued that the money received was towards NPIL's dues, and the freezing of accounts caused hardship to the company and its employees. The petitioner offered to abide by any conditions, including executing a bond for the alleged amount.

5. The respondent contended that a related writ petition was filed in another court, and no interim order should be granted. The petitioner offered to withdraw the writ petition if an interim order was issued in this case.

6. The court noted the business relationship between the petitioner and NPIL, with the main allegation being the unauthorized transfer of funds by the suspended CMD. The freezing of accounts was deemed unnecessary for the investigation, considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's offer to furnish a bond.

7. Consequently, the court granted the interim relief, directing the lifting of the lien on the petitioner's bank account and allowing operation of the accounts until further court order. However, this relief was subject to the petitioner withdrawing the related writ petition and providing an indemnity bond for the disputed amount.

8. The court disposed of the interlocutory application with the above conditions, balancing the petitioner's need to operate accounts with the ongoing investigation and legal proceedings.