Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (4) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, the allegation to prove the liability of the Corporate Debtor is bereft of sufficient documentary evidence. While on the other hand the copy of the scheme-passbook holds the name of M/s. Nathella Sampathu Shetty and Co. which in itself is self-explanatory that the Corporate Debtor has no nexus with the same. Therefore, it is evident that the amount paid by the Applicant on the gold scheme was not collected by the corporate debtor and that no sufficient evidence as to show the diversion of funds into the Corporate Debtor have been carried out. Under the said circumstances this Adjudicating Authority finds it deems fit to dismiss the instant application for bereft of evidence. Application dismissed. - IA(IBC)/977(CHE)/2020 in CP(IB .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .: PU12341718 for 20.00 grams of gold in the name of the Applicant herein. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the Corporate Debtor had filed a Section 10 (1) Application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process subsequent to which an order dated 23.04.2018 was passed by this Adjudicating Authority. On becoming aware of the same, the applicant had filled his claim before the IRP appointed. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that, on 03.01.2020 this Adjudicating Authority had passed a liquidation order appointing the Respondent herein as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor and a public announcement was made on 14.01.2020 to that ef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that the claim has been lodged wrongly with the Liquidator instead of having been raised before the Partnership Firm namely Nathella Sampathu Chetty Co wherein the chit payments have been made by the applicant. Moreover, the applicant did not place any material evidencing the monthly chit payment was paid to the CD for admission of claim, further the applicant has paid the monthly chit to the Nathella Sampathu Chetty Co account i.e. partnership firm. The copy of the chit passbook submitted by the applicant, under the payment options clearly indicates that chit payment Cheque/DD should be drawn in favour of Nathella Sampathu Chetty Co . Pursuant to Section 40 of the code, the Liquidator can reject claims or a part thereof provided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the name of the applicant for manufacturing of the Gold but the same can be executed upon receipt of an amount from Nathella Sampathu Chetty Co . It is pertinent to note that, the Order form indicates that the total balance due will be shown as 0.00-Nil- . However, in this case the Corporate Debtor did not receive any amount from the partnership firm upon verification of the ledger. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the applicant had filed an application against the decisions of the Liquidator u/s. 42 of the Code, seeking for admission of the claim of the Partnership Firm which is not maintainable in law nor in facts to accept his claim. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lfare Association and had preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by including the Respondent Liquidator as one of the Respondents seeking their monies to be returned from all the group entities including the said Partnership Firm and the Corporate Debtor among others. In event, the respondent is praying to dismiss the instant Application as not maintainable neither in law nor in facts and thus render justice. 17. Heard the submissions and perused the documents on record including the written submissions filed. In view of the facts as discussed above it is apparent that the Respondent/Liquidator had rejected the claim of the Applicant on the ground that (1) the claim amount is not reflected in the books of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates