2024 (5) TMI 1450 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Dismissal of an application of recall of an order - manipulation of books of account and siphoning of funds - fabrication of valuation report - HELD THAT - The Ld. NCLT had rightly observed there was nothing on record to suggest Respondent No.7 was a necessary and proper party or was required to be summoned as a Respondent only for confirmation of his valuation report, when such valuation report in fact was never denied by the Respondents except it was required to be verified by the Statutory Auditors. The orders dated 11.01.2024 and dt. 22.02.2024 does not warrant any interference by this Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of application for recall of an order dated 11.01.2024.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the dismissal of an application for the recall of an order dated 11.01.2024. The Appellant argued that the Respondent No. 3 had manipulated the books of account and siphoned funds, leading to a Business Separation Agreement in August 2021 that favored the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 7, a Company Secretary and valuer, prepared a valuation report that was not implemented by Respondent No. 3 and 4, leading to a Company Petition before the NCLT.

2. The NCLT's order dated 11.01.2024 highlighted that Respondent No. 7, the valuer, was added as a party without any relief being sought against him. The NCLT found that Respondent No. 7 was unnecessarily made a party and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the NCLT, Ahmedabad, which was not challenged before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. The Appellate Tribunal examined the necessity of Respondent No. 7 being a party before the NCLT. It was noted that Respondent No. 7 was only required to prepare a valuation report, and no relief was claimed against him. The Tribunal found that there was no record to suggest Respondent No. 7 was a necessary party or required for confirmation of the valuation report, as it was never denied by the Respondents.

4. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the orders dated 11.01.2024 and 22.02.2024 did not require interference. It was held that there was no merit in the appeal, and it was dismissed along with the disposal of pending applications. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's decision regarding the unnecessary inclusion of Respondent No. 7 in the proceedings.

By carefully analyzing the facts and legal arguments presented, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the NCLT's findings and dismissed the appeal against the order dated 11.01.2024, emphasizing that Respondent No. 7 was not a necessary party and the valuation report prepared by him did not warrant his inclusion in the proceedings.