2020 (12) TMI 643 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Preferential transactions and fraudulent trading/ wrongful trading - scope of powers of the Adjudicating Authority to look into the transactions which attract the provisions of Sections 43/66 of the I B Code - HELD THAT - It is abundantly clear that allegations of preferential transactions as also fraudulent trading/ wrongful trading carried on by the Corporate Debtor during the insolvency resolution can be inquired into by the Adjudicating Authority. This being the settled position of law, it was not open to the Adjudicating Authority to link the fate of CA-1342/2019 with CA-702/2019. All that the Adjudicating Authority was required to do was to take cognizance of the complaint emanating from the Liquidator in regard to the alleged preferential transactions and fraudulent trading/wrongful trading having occurred qua the Corporate Debtor - impugned order to the extent indicated, cannot be supported and the same is modified by providing that the Adjudicating Authority will inquire into such alleged dealings in accordance with law with expedition, preferably within two months. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under Sections 43 and 66 of the I&B Code
- Abdication of powers by Adjudicating Authority
- Linking of different cases by Adjudicating Authority
- Compliance with statutory provisions and judicial dictum

Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under Sections 43 and 66 of the I&B Code:
The Adjudicating Authority was approached by the Liquidator to invoke Sections 43 and 66 of the I&B Code for preferential transactions and fraudulent trading. The Authority observed that it couldn't look into these transactions and referred the matter to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs or an Investigating Agency. The Appellant argued that the Authority had the right to inquire into these matters as per the I&B Code. Referring to legal precedents, it was established that the Adjudicating Authority indeed had the power to investigate such transactions during insolvency resolution.

2. Abdication of powers by Adjudicating Authority:
The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly abdicated its powers by referring the matter to external agencies. The Authority's duty was to investigate the alleged preferential transactions and fraudulent trading directly, as per statutory provisions. The Appellate Tribunal agreed that the Authority erred in linking different cases and not directly addressing the issues raised by the Liquidator. The impugned order was deemed not in line with legal provisions and judicial precedents.

3. Linking of different cases by Adjudicating Authority:
The Adjudicating Authority linked the fate of one case with another, which was deemed inappropriate by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that the Authority should have separately addressed the complaints regarding preferential transactions and fraudulent trading without intertwining different cases. The impugned order was modified to direct the Authority to inquire into the alleged dealings promptly and in accordance with the law, preferably within two months.

4. Compliance with statutory provisions and judicial dictum:
The Appellate Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and judicial precedents. It highlighted that the Adjudicating Authority must conduct inquiries into preferential transactions and fraudulent trading as per the I&B Code. The Tribunal's decision to modify the impugned order aimed to ensure compliance with the law and expedite the investigation process. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with instructions to communicate the order to the Adjudicating Authority promptly.