9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appellants herein) that they have not filed any reply - the Adjudicating Authority from the observations in the impugned order noted in Para 22 indicate that Adjudicating Authority was under impression that the entire money invested by the Home Buyers have been rooted back to the relatives of Respondent No. 3 to 7, which is obviously not the position and the same ought to have been cleared by the Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority. It is clear that we have not entered into the merits of the allegations made or claim made in the application of the Resolution Professional or Reply which was submitted by the Appellants before the Adjudicating Authority. At this stage, the Adjudicating Authority should reconsider the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Professional. By the order dated 17.11.2021, the Adjudicating Authority while disposing I.A. No. 107/2021 following directions have been passed in Para 37:- 37. In view of the above the Bench directs the following: a. Removal of R3 to R7 form CoC and also as financial Creditor/ Home-Buyer, as there is no debt own to them by the Corporate Debtor company and purported infusion of funds by each of these Respondent were retuned back to them through their related parties (relatives) on the same day of the next day by Respondent Number 1 and 2 who are suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor company. b. These transactions of purported creditors are vitiated by fraud, therefore all these transactions are declared as null and void ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 021. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has directed for removal of Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 from the CoC and also as Financial Creditor Home Buyer. The reason given by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order is with regard to an amount of ₹ 10 Lakhs which was paid by the Appellant, that there is circuitous transaction by which the amount was returned back to the relatives of the Appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order impugned submitted that the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority are without considering the reply filed by the Appellants and the Adjudicating Authority has committed error in observing that no reply has been filed by these Appellants. It is submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors have no locus to challenge the order impugned and the Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 67 of 2022 which deserves to be dismissed having lack of locus. 6. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, it is clear that Adjudicating Authority has made observations against the Appellants and one of the premise on basis of which the order has passed recording finding against the Respondents (Appellants herein) that they have not filed any reply. In para 35 of the judgment following has been observed: 35. The Bench also notes that from amongst these alleged home buyers/ Respondents only R7 (Meena Gokhle) has submitted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve no locus to file the Appeal. In the Application I.A. No. 107/2021 which was filed by the Resolution Professional it was clearly sought that Respondent No. 1 and 2, who are the Ex-Directors, be directed to contribute ₹ 70 Lakhs back to the Corporate Debtor. When order was sought for contribution of ₹ 70 Lakhs form the Ex-Directors and the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has made observations against the Suspended Directors also, we see no reason to accept the submission that Ex-Directors have no locus to challenge the order. Observation that transactions are vitiated have serious consequences which can very well be questioned by the aggrieved person. 10. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
