9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority vide Order dated 29/05/2020 had ordered for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company. As regarding the forfeiture of BSBG, it is clearly stated in the terms that only when the Resolution Applicant is found to have made false or misleading representation , it can be forfeited. In the instant case, there is absolutely no material evidence on record to substantiate the contention of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent had deliberately or maliciously sought to derail the CIRP Process or given any misleading representation. It is not the case of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent had challenged his ineligibility under Section 29A of the I B Code, 2016 by way of an Appeal. It is pertinent to mention that under Regulatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Liquidator has preferred this Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Current Liquidator submitted that the Promoters had made every effort to derail the Resolution Process, on account of which the Corporate Debtor was pushed into liquidation. A false Certificate regarding 29A eligibility was given by the Promoters and it was because of the fraudulent action of the Promoters that the CIRP was delayed and the Company went into Liquidation. It is contended that though the Appellant had requested several times to make the Claim for refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), it was the Respondent who had ignored the same and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lieve that the Respondent is conniving with the erstwhile promoters of the Corporate Debtor to defraud. 21. After perusing the application in toto, we are of the view that the averments made in para 2 of the Application are no so grave, so as to defame the reputation of the Liquidator. Under such circumstances, IA/275/CHE/2021 stands dismissed. 4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent submitted that Mr. S. Hari Karthik has replaced the earlier Liquidator Mr. V. Venkata Sivakumar. This Tribunal, vide Order dated 06/07/2023 allowed IA No. 39/2023, whereby and whereunder Mr. S. Hari Karthik sought to get himself substituted as the Appellant, in place of the erstwhile Liquidator, Mr. V. Venkata Sivakumar. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent had filed an Application under Section 60 (5) of the Code, seeking direction to the Appellant to refund the EMD paid and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the Liquidator had no right to hold back the EMD amount and directed the Liquidator to refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- within 7 days from the date of the Order. However, the Appellant had failed to comply even with these directions of the Adjudicating Authority and had preferred this Appeal. 6. The main point which arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether the Respondent is entitled to refund of the EMD Amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, as he was considered to be disqualified under Section 29A of the Code for Submission of the Plan . 7. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an Appeal. It is his case that the 1st Respondent had made every effort to derail the CIRP Process. At the cost of repetition, there is no shred of evidence to establish this contention. The Citation relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in the matter of National Highway Authority of India Vs. Ganga Enterprises (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as it deals with the Law of Contract and Forfeiture of Bid Security . 10. It is significant to mention that in the letter dated 25/08/2020, the erstwhile Liquidator had stated that between February to May 2020, he himself had requested the Advocate for the 1st Respondent to give a letter so that he could process the same. The Learned Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
