9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Company record that the said Consideration was paid on its behalf by M/s Shivalika Leasing and Finance Limited , this Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the amount has been paid by Cheque. This Tribunal finds it a fit case to place reliance on the Judgment of the Principal Bench of NCLAT in the matter of JAGDISH KUMAR PARULKAR, LIQUIDATOR FOR KAPIL STEELS LTD. VERSUS M/S INDORE STEEL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, SUBHASH KUMAR JAISWAL, MANISH MALVIYA, M/S RUPENDRA JAISWAL KUMAR, MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [ 2023 (3) TMI 1388 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI] in which this Tribunal had addressed in detail, regarding the role of Liquidator and observed The negligence on the part of the Corporate Debtor not to have executed the lease deed cannot be overlooked and cannot be allowed to become a ruse for fraudulent transaction. Mere possibility of a potential collusion without material on record is not sufficient to persuade, this Bench to record any finding on preferential or fraudulent transaction. It is settled position of law that there is a presumption that a Registered Document is validly execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor and in fact was the Director of the Respondent Company between 30/04/2009 and 27/07/2019. It is also contended that there are no tangible reasons given for the inordinate delay of almost 20 years in execution of the Sale Deed dated 11/08/2008. The Sale Consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- is without any appreciation / profit whatsoever and it is improbable that the value of the immovable Property did not appreciate over the years. It is submitted that the Respondent in their Reply dated 20/01/2023 have started a Joint Development over the Scheduled Property for a sum of Rs. 37,00,000/- and therefore, it is the intention that under these Fraudulent Activities to siphon off the assets of the Corporate Debtor for the benefit of the Respondent Company. It is further contended that except for a mere Recital in the alleged sale dated 11/08/2008, there is no actual flow of consideration to the Corporate Debtor and therefore this Sale is not valid in the eyes of Law. It is also submitted that there is no proof of bank transfer, bank draft, or any other mode of payment to substantiate that the Sale Consideration was paid to the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Statements of the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registration of the Sale Deed was solely on account of the tenancy legislation. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor had approached the Respondent for sale of the Scheduled Property on a back-to-back basis and the said funds were paid by M/s Shivalika Leasing Finance Limited on behalf of the Respondent. The same is reflected in the audited financials of the Respondent for the year 2008-2009. Initially a sum of Rs. 37,50,000/- was paid to the Corporate Debtor and thereafter, the balance amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- along with interest was also paid to the Corporate Debtor. The payment is duly recorded in the Books of Accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the list of prospectus, the relevant paragraph is detailed as hereunder: Further the Company has also purchased land measuring 1,17,000 Sq. Mtrs, At Nessai, Margao, Goa in an Auction from Bank of Baroda and the Hon ble Bombay High Court (Panjim Bench) has confirmed the sale. As per the legal advice obtained by the Company no conveyance deed is required for the aforesaid unit. The above land and building thereon have been sold to a company in which the Director are interested. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it relevant to reproduce the letter dated 06/09/1989 issued by Bank of Baroda stating that an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was received in the account of the Corporate Debtor. 11. This Tribunal finds it a fit case to place reliance on the Judgment of the Principal Bench of NCLAT in the matter of Jagdish Kumar Parulkar v. Indore Steel Alloys (P.) Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 802 of 2022, dated 21/03/2023 in which this Tribunal had addressed in detail, regarding the role of Liquidator and observed as follows: .Liquidators under the IBC are assigned by the Court and are undisputedly vested with sufficient authority to take into custody or control all assets, property, effects and actionable claims of the Corporate Debtor and also collect outstanding receivables including paying off bills and outstanding debts. This includes the authority to commence investigations into the Corporate Debtor s financial affairs for determination of preferential and undervalued transaction as envisaged under section 35(1)(1) of IBC. The Liquidator has therefore a fiduciary and legal responsibility to the Corporate Debtor, the creditors and the Court. Be that as it may, the Liq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
