9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Respondent rejecting the claim filed by the Applicant before it under section 38 of the IBC; (ii) Consequently direct the Respondent to verify and consider the claim submitted by the Applicant on 03.02.2020 under section 38 of the IBC and (iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Bench deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has invested to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) in the 'Celebrating Daughters Scheme--Thanga Magal Thittam--1940 Per Gram--5 Year Plan' offered by M/s. Nathella Sampathu Chetty & Co in their branch at Anna Nagar, Chennai on 28.04.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the claim amount is not in the books of the Corporate Debtor and the claim pertains to M/s. Nathella Sampathu Chetty & Co. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Respondent had rejected the claim made by the Applicant without sufficient opportunity. It is further averred that the Respondent has failed to consider the proof of the investment and the receipt issued by the corporate debtor. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that M/s. Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co. was a partnership firm merged with the corporate debtor. It is averred that the corporate debtor was carrying out its retail business in the name of M/s. Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co. and that the Respondent had failed to appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent instead before the Partnership Firm namely "Nathella Sampathu Chetty & Co" wherein the chit payments has been made by the applicant. Moreover, the applicant did not place any material evidencing the chit payment paid to the Corporate Debtor for admission of claim, further the applicant has paid the chit to the Nathella Sampathu Chetty & Co account i.e. partnership firm. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the claim is pertaining to the Partnership Firm which shall be appreciated by this Adjudicating Authority on perusal of the above said documents. It is further averred that the liquidator has obtained clarification from the Partnership firm. As per the clarifications received, the applicant had paid c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention of the Applicant that the books of the corporate debtor shows that it had received 181.42 crores from M/s. Nathella Sampathu Chetty & Co. referring to the FIR registered is for the financial year 2012-2013, while the payment TMT Receipt annexed reflects the date of payment as 28.04.2014. 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.
14. Accordingly, IA/1105/2020 stands Dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
