9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f IBC, 2016. Application dismissed. - IA(IBC)/491(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1099/2019 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2022 - S. Ramathilagam, J. (Member (J)) and Anil Kumar B., Member (T) For the Appellant: S.R. Raghunathan and B. Thilak Narayanan, Advocates For the Respondent: K. Gaurav Kumar, PCS and Mithra, Advocate ORDER S. Ramathilagam, J. (Member (J)) 1. The present Application is filed by the RP of M/s. Regen Powertech Private Limited under Section 66(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking relief as follows; (i) to direct the Respondents jointly and severally contribute to the assets of the Corporate Debtor by paying a sum of Rs. 1,56,51,772/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Six Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Only) alongwith 12% interest from 12.02.2018 till the date of realization in full; and (ii) to pass such other orders or further orders this may be deemed to be fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor was initiated by this Tribunal vide its order dated 09.12.2019 and the Applicant herein was appointed as the Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor has made payment to the tune of Rs. 2,85,99,847/(Rupees Two Crore Eight Five Lakh Ninety-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-Seven Only) to the 1st Respondent, availing a Letter of Credit No. 001LM02180340004, from its Banker Yes Bank Limited, Worli Branch, Mumbai. 5. It was submitted that after the Applicant took charge of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant has reviewed the Stocks and Entries of the Corporate Debtor. After review, the Applicant found that as per SAP viz., Systems, Applications and Products in Date Processing, the Purchase Order quantity is 150 EA. however, only 3 Goods Receipt Notes were made against the said Purchase Order for 78 EA, for 2 invoices alone, as against the 9 Invoices mentioned above. Evidently, apart from the materials supplied by the 1st Respondent under Invoice Bill Nos. 84 and 85, the other Invoice Bill Nos. 102B, 105A, 106A, 107A, 108A and 112A to the tune of Rs. 1,56,51,772/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Six Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Only) are fake and no materials were supplied under the said Invoice Bills. The 1st Respondent in connivance with Respondents 2 to 4 have raised fake invoices wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted before this Adjudicating Authority and as a result vide Order dated 01.02.2022, this Adjudicating Authority had approved the Resolution Plan. Under such circumstances, it was submitted that the erstwhile Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant herein, lacks the locus standi to further the present Application filed under Section 66(1) of IBC. This is in consonance with the legal rational that the Role of a Resolution Professional comes to halt once the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority. This view was emphasized and upheld by the Delhi High court in the matter of M/s. Venus Recruiters Private Limited Vs. Union of India Ors. W.P.(C) 8705/2019) CM APPL. 36026/2019 (annexed as Annexure 1) wherein the High Court of Delhi held, in Para 51, as follows: Once a Resolution Plan is approved, the moratorium order under Section 14 shall cease to have effect and the RP shall forward all the records relating to the CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the Board to be recorded on it database. Thus, the role of a RP comes to an end here. 9. It was submitted that there is a START line and FINISH line for the Resolution process. Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said applications to their logical end in their name and therefore the Resolution Professional has no locus standi in this matter. 11. It was submitted that the Application filed by the Applicant fails to meet the pre-requisites detailed under Section 66(1) of IBC to initiate a proceedings against Fraudulent Trading . 12. It was submitted that upon clear reading of the above section, it is evident that the said section is triggered when the business of the Corporate Debtor is carried on with intent to defraud the creditors or for any fraudulent purpose. Further upon proving the above, the Adjudicating Authority may make any persons liable to contribute to the assets of the Corporate Debtor, if at all such persons were knowingly involved in carrying the business of the Corporate Debtor in a fraudulent manner. 13. It was submitted that the Applicant herein has failed to establish that the business of the Corporate Debtor was carried in a fraudulent manner and that R1 was a party who was knowingly involved in such a fraudulent business. Rather, the Applicant has come up with allegations which have no relevance in order to attract the provisions of section 66 of IBC. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
