9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditor can claim payment of fee for procuring the loan. We in the present case are considering the initiation of the CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority had sufficient reason to believe that debt itself is doubtful. No error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in refusing to initiate the CIRP on such suspicious debt. Thus, the order of the Adjudicating Authority refusing to initiate CIRP cannot be faulted and we affirm the said order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Show-cause notice under Section 65(1) of the IBC - HELD THAT:- The notice has been issued consequent to the impugned order passed, to which the parties were entitled to file reply. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has already fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Corporate Debtor which document has now been screen shared by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporate Debtor before us and he pointed out that the loan was applied by the Corporate Debtor and co-applicant was Mr. Gulshan Jhurani, the Director of the Operational Creditor. Section 9 Application was filed claiming that a debt of Rs.57,25,000/- is due which was process fee for procuring the loan for the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties took the view that transaction which took place between two related companies in the year 2015 appears to be sham transaction and which could not be basis for initiating any CIRP. Challenging the said order, this Appeal has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant is seeking to initiate CIR Process were having common Director namely, Mr. Gulshan Kumar Jhurani (DIN: 00209894). By way of visiting the records at the MCA Website and on piercing the corporate veil, it is clear that not only both the Applicant Company as well as the Corporate Debtor were 'related party' due to common Directorship on the date of the invoice but also here is a case, where Director of the Corporate Debtor (in the capacity of Director of the Applicant Company) has procured a loan for his own company and is charging procurement fee therefor. In view of the aforesaid finding, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid transaction, which had taken place between the two related Companies in the year 2015 is sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s punishable under Section 65 (I) of IBC 2016. Hence, before taking any action under Section 65(1) IBC 2016, we think it proper to issue a show cause notice, under Rule 59 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016, to M/S. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors and M/S Par Excellence Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors and to Mr. Gulshan Kumar Jhurani as to why the penalty as stipulated under Section 65(1) of IBC, 2016 shall not be imposed on them. Ld. Registrar NCLT is directed to issue the show cause notice under Section 65(1) of IBC 2016 read with Rule 59 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 by giving them fifteen days time to explain and submit in writing as to why the penalty as stipulated under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
