9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 16.12.2020. But the reply was not filed and the case was listed for ex-parte hearing on 16.2.2021. While it is correct that a copy of the reply was sent to Mr. Alexander Seitz, it is clear from the order-sheet dated 22.7.2021 that the case had already been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.1.2021 and no reply has come on record nor any relief is sought from the court. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant was completely remis in seeking permission of the Adjudicating Authority for taking its reply on record and hence the matter was finally adjudicated ex-parte. The transactions that are the subject of Impugned Order were all done after 5.8.2018 and therefore, in the absence of any reply/clarification/ explanation by Mr. Sandeep Sood to explain the transactions - the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in inferring that the said transactions were hit by section 46 of the IBC. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority has correctly directed Mr. Sandeep Sood, ex-Director of the Corporate Debtor to transfer the monies which are stated in paragraph 4 of the Impugned Order back to the Corporate Debtor account - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and also between the Corporate Debtor with the company Lotus Imports, which is a sole proprietorship firm of Mr. Sandeep Sood. All these transactions amounting to Rs.63,50,000 with Lotus Imports, Rs.32,75,000 with Simran Technologies, Rs. 68,000 with Mrs. Parul Sood and Rs.17,64,785 to sundry beneficiaries was done during the period 5.2.2018 till 10.7.2018, which are within a period of 2 years prior to initiation of the CIRP on 8.8.2019 and therefore they being preferential transactions are liable to be returned to the Corporate Debtor. 4. We heard the arguments submitted by the Learned Counsel for Appellant and Learned Counsels for Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2 and also perused the record. 5. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that the case was proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant (who was Respondent in CA No. 574 of 2019 before the Adjudicating Authority) even though the Appellant had valid reasons regarding his absence before the Adjudicating Authority and could file his written reply detailing how the transactions were genuine and carried out in the ordinary course of business vide reply affidavit dated 10.2.2021 which was not taken on record and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that Mr. Alexander Seitz through his Legal Counsel, sent a reply dated 20.9.2019 (attached at pp. 156-157 of the appeal paper book), wherein he has clearly stated that since 5.2.2018 all records, documents, assets etc. of Seitz India Pvt. Ltd. are in the sole custody and possession of Mr. Sandeep Sood. He has also stated that the bank transactions carried out by Mr. Sandeep Sood during the period 5.2.2018 till 10.7.2018 involving M/s. Lotus Imports, Simran Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Mrs. Parul Sood were challenged in a suit before the Delhi High Court in CS (COMM)/513/2018, IA No. 8701/2018 wherein the Hon ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 10.7.2018 had restrained Mr. Sandeep Sood (Defendant No. 2) from withdrawing money from the two bank accounts, namely A/c no. 11450500598 and A/c no. 103705000218 (order of Hon ble Delhi High Court attached at pp. 158-159 of the appeal paper book). He has mentioned that the order of Delhi High Court shows that Mr. Sandeep Sood had been withdrawing monies amounting to Rs.1,14,57,785 covering 25 transactions from the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor Seitz India Pvt. Ltd. and upon receiving a restrained order of Hon ble Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Appellant from the accounts of the Corporate Debtor should be justly returned to the Corporate Debtor as has been directed by the Adjudicating Authority vide the Impugned Order.. 10. A perusal of the records submitted by the Appellant shows that vide e-mail dated 13.9.2019 addressed by the RP to Mr. Sandeep Sood and Mr. Alexander Seitz, information was sought for a list of 25 transactions amounting to Rs.1,14,57,785 whose details were given in the said e-mail (attached at pp. 152-153 of the appeal paper book). The reply from Mr. Alexander Seitz dated 20.9.2019 (attached at pp. 156-157 of the appeal paper book) states that since 5.2.2018, all records, documents, assets etc. of Seitz India Pvt. Ltd.(Corporate Debtor) are in the custody and possession of Mr. Sandeep Sood. He has also admitted that a few laptops and mobile phones submitted to Mr. Seitz by the employees of Seitz India Pvt. Ltd. who were fired by Mr. Sandeep Sood are in Mr. Alexander Seitz s custody, which he is ready to return to the RP. Mr. Sandeep Sood has not clearly replied to the e-mail dated 13.9.2019 of the RP, but has asked a counter question vide his e-mail dated 19.9.2019 (attached at pg. 154 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttlement of accounts inter-se Seitz India Pvt. Ltd., Seitz GmbH and Simran Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was entered into through an MoU dated 25.4.2017 and thus there were certain business dealings and transactions, which were sought to be settled through this MoU. Therefore, he has urged that the monies debited from the accounts of Seitz India Private Limited/Corporate Debtor are in relation to the supplies of goods and business dealings between Seitz GmbH and Simran Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Lotus Imports. While it is correct that the NCLT has held in CA No. 776 of 2019 that there was a pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor Seitz GmbH and the Corporate Debtor Simran Technologies Pvt. Ltd., it is also true that the monies taken out from the accounts of the Corporate Debtor in the present appeal were done by Mr. Sandeep Sood after 5.2.2018 when Mr. Alexander Seitz had handed over the management of the company and taken over by Mr. Sandeep Sood. The transactions that are the subject of Impugned Order were all done after 5.8.2018 and therefore, in the absence of any reply/clarification/ explanation by Mr. Sandeep Sood to explain the transactions. We do not think that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
