9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit of service and materials brought on record has held that notices were served. The letter produced itself clearly indicates that Rajendra Kumar was a staff of 3 C Company and he requested that he should be removed from the post of Director from all the Companies of 3 C Group. The letter sent by Rajendra Kumar has been brought on record by the Appellant himself, which indicates that Rajendra Kumar was Director in All Companies of 3 C Group, hence, the signature of Rajendra Kumar on the loan Agreement is clearly explained as he was made Director in all Companies of 3 C by the Appellant and other Promoters. Coming to the RTI reply, which has been filed by the Appellant, suffice it to say that RTI reply cannot be a basis for disregarding the loan Agreement dated 31.05.2018. Admittedly, the RTI reply was obtained at the instance of the Appellant on 03.09.2022, which was a document procured by the Appellant for the purposes of the case. More so, the amount transferred in the Bank account of the Appellant was in pursuance to the loan Agreement. There is no denial of transfer of the amount by Bank transfer in the account of the Corporate Debtor. When disbursement of the loan is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned, suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor has filed this Appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Vaibhav Gaggar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is ex-parte to the Appellant. The notice on the Application was never served on the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant came to know about the order when the copy of the Company Petition was forwarded by one of the Director of M/s. Rimrock Infratech Pvt. Ltd. stating that the same was served on them and it was only after receipt of the email on 03.09.2022, the Appellant became aware of the Company Petition filed before the NCLT. It is submitted that on the email address of the Corporate Debtor is [email protected], no notice has been served and the notice, which was sent by Speed Post was received by another Company, i.e., M/s. Rimrock Infratech Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that loan Agreement as claimed by Financial Creditor is a forged documents and one Mr. Rajendra Kumar, who claimed to have signed the loan Agreement as Director of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector of the Corporate Debtor has signed the loan Agreement and in pursuance of the loan Agreement, payment was transferred by State Bank of India, which was transferred in the account of the Corporate Debtor on 02.06.2018. Bank statement of account pertaining to transfer of the amount has been filed along with Section 7 Application, which clearly proves the disbursement. The Appellant has raised the bogie that loan Agreement is a forged one, whereas, no explanation has sought to be given and no denial has been made regarding receipt of the amount in the Bank account of the Corporate Debtor. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 7. The first question to be considered is as to whether notices sent in Section 7 Application to the Corporate Debtor were duly served or not? 8. In the Appeal itself, the Appellant has filed Company Master Data at pages 68, which was obtained on 26.10.2021, indicate that email ID of the Corporate Debtor is [email protected]. Another Company Master Data, which has been filed at page 90 as Annexure A-5 was obtained on 09.03.2022, which shows that email address is now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, are satisfied that notices were duly served on the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority in its order in paragraph 10 has recorded that on three dates, there was no representation on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. Paragraph 10 is as follows: 10. From perusal of the order sheet, it is observed that despite service, there was no representation by or on behalf of the Corporate Debtor on 03.12.2021, 22.03.2022 and 10.05.2022. Accordingly, the Respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.05.2022. 10. The Financial Creditor has also filed an affidavit of service dated 15.12.2021 before the Adjudicating Authority where details of service of notices were mentioned. The Adjudicating Authority being fully satisfied by the affidavit of service and materials brought on record has held that notices were served. 11. Now coming to the submission of the Appellant that loan Agreement dated 31.05.2018 was a forged document and Rajendra Kumar, who claimed to have signed the document was not the Director of the Corporate Debtor at the relevant time. According to the Appellant, Rajendra Kumar became the Director of the Corporate Debtor only with effect from 29.08.2019. The Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
