9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an ORDER Per - Shyam Babu Gautam , Member Technical 1. It is an application filed by the Ambit Finvest Private Limited (Dissenting Financial Creditor) under sections 60(5), 66, 67, 47 and 73 of IBC read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, against the Rakesh Niranjan Ranjan (Resolution Applicant/Erstwhile Director) and others, seeking following reliefs: i.) Declare that the avoidance transactions have been committed by the Respondent no. 1, 4 to 7 being a part of the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor ii.) To reverse the effects of such avoidance transactions and cast the liability to bring Rs. 2,28,30,000/- upon the Respondent no.1, 4 to 7 to the Corporate Debtor. iii.) To reject the resolution Plan proposed by the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous sales of Rs 39,00,000/- booked by them to falsify the accounts and commit fraud upon the creditors by way of misrepresentation. In relation to undervalued transactions, the Applicant has stated that the Corporate Debtor has invested an amount of Rs. 50.85 Lakhs and Rs. 138.45 Lakhs in Anand Tecknow ILC Oman who is a related party of the Corporate Debtor. Further submitted that the transfer of Rs.1,89,30,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Nine Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only)/- was not in the ordinary course of business and that it was in the nature of gift and hence it is an undervalued transaction as per Section 45 (2) of the IBC 2016. The Counsel for the Applicant argued that the Resolution Professional has neither reported these transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor is an MSME, provisions of Section 240 A of the Code are applicable and it provide an exemption to the Successful Resolution Applicant from complying the provisions of Section 29A(c) and (h) of the Code. 6. In relation to entry of invoice no. 160020 on 01.09.2016 and 06.09.2016, the Respondent no.1/Successful Resolution Applicant has submitted that the ledger entries relating to this transaction was verified by the Resolution Professional. The entries itself shows that there was a typographical error committed by the accounting team of the Corporate Debtor and accordingly the same sale was reversed in the accounts of the Corporate Debtor on 01.03.2019. Same was verified by the statutory auditor and a copy of the certificate of audito ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 66 may be filed only by the resolution professional or the liquidator. In the present case RP was satisfied that there was no cause to file an application under Section 66 of the code and the same was confirmed by the CoC. 8. After looking into the averments, this bench is of the view that the Corporate Debtor is a registered MSME and the provisions of Section 240 A of the Code provide an exemption to the Successful Resolution Applicant from compliance with the provisions of Section 29A(c) and (h) of the Code. So, the resolution plan submitted by the resolution applicant is very much under the provisions of Code. Moreover, a clause of personal guarantee in the resolution plan will not extinguish the right of creditors to proceed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
