9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 251 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyExaggeration of claim by suitably manipulating their records - wrongful gains - imposing heavy costs on the Respondent No. 1/Operational Creditor with an amount, at least equal to the value of the CIRP Costs - HELD THAT - As per the audited account as on 31st March, 2019 the dues payable to the Respondent No. 1 (Operational Creditor) is ₹ 91,05,994/- and this fact was admitted by the applicant stating that the audited accounts have been finalized even before the admission of the Corporate Debtor under CIRP. This Tribunal also while admitting the aforesaid Application relied on the Audited Accounts and based on the same it was held that the amount payable to Respondent No. 1 (Operational Creditor) is more than the threshold limit of one lakh rupees. The amount of ₹ 91,05,994/- was noted at that point of time, and admitted the Corporate Debtor for CIRP. The RP, has not admitted any amount claimed to be apportioned by the 1st Respondent against the dues of a foreign entity i.e., Matheel Al-Nujoom Group of Industries wherein the applicant Mr. Shameel E.P is a Common Director, since the amount has been remitted by the Corporate Debtor against import through proper banking channel in compliance with the RBI Regulations. The Corporate Debtor has not raised any of the points raised in this application, as the applicant was silent waiving the Corporate Debtor right to file an appeal, if the Corporate Debtor was really aggrieved by the aforesaid admission of the matter - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Repayment of money wrongfully received under SWIFT remittances. 2. Release from Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 3. Imposition of penalty for malicious proceedings. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Repayment of Money Wrongfully Received Under SWIFT Remittances The Applicant, a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, sought a directive for the Respondent No. 1/Operational Creditor to repay USD 894,000 received through three SWIFT remittances, along with interest at 18% p.a. The Applicant argued that the Respondent No. 1 had exaggerated claims by manipulating records. The Applicant highlighted discrepancies in the claims made by the Operational Creditor, showing a significant drop from ?13.29 Crores to ?91.05 Lakhs. The Respondent No. 1 admitted that the invoices referred to in the SWIFT remittances were not theirs, and the amounts did not constitute advance against future supplies. The Tribunal noted that the amount of USD 2,91,502.20 was appropriated towards Matheel Al Nujoom, which was not authorized by the Corporate Debtor's bank, Bank of Baroda. The Tribunal found that the Respondent No. 1 had wrongfully adjusted the amounts despite affirming no relevant invoices existed. Issue 2: Release from Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) The Applicant requested to be released from the CIRP by revoking the Tribunal's order dated 7th November 2019. The Applicant claimed that the Operational Creditor had maliciously pushed the Corporate Debtor into insolvency with bogus claims. The Tribunal noted that the audited accounts as on 31st March 2019 showed dues of ?91,05,994/- payable to the Respondent No. 1. This amount was above the threshold limit, justifying the CIRP initiation. The Tribunal emphasized that the Applicant had not raised these points during the initial proceedings and was now attempting to reopen an admitted matter, which was not permissible. The Tribunal ruled that the matter had attained finality, and the Resolution Professional had already filed for approval of the Resolution Plan. Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty for Malicious Proceedings The Applicant sought a penalty on the Respondent No. 1 for initiating malicious proceedings. The Tribunal observed that the Respondent No. 1's claim was partially admitted by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) after verification. The Respondent No. 1 contended that the application was vexatious and aimed at prolonging the CIRP. The Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant's claims of mala fide intentions by the Respondent No. 1. The Tribunal held that the Respondent No. 1's actions were within the legal framework, and the Applicant's attempt to challenge the final order was not justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that it lacked merit. The Tribunal upheld the CIRP initiation based on the verified and audited accounts showing dues above the threshold limit. The Tribunal also found no basis for the Applicant's claims of wrongful receipt of funds and malicious proceedings by the Respondent No. 1. The application was deemed an attempt to reopen a settled matter, which was not permissible. The Tribunal's decision was final, and no further orders were passed in favor of the Applicant.
|
