NCLT upholds Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction, recommends prosecution, and dismisses appeals

The NCLT dismissed the appeals, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction and procedural fairness. The recommendation for prosecution was upheld, with final decision left to the IBBI. The appeals lacked merit, and the impugned order was deemed legally sound. Applications regarding a general circular were allowed and closed. The appeals were dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 19 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code).
2. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to recommend prosecution under Section 70 read with Section 236 of the I&B Code.
3. Status and liability of Independent Directors and Non-Executive Directors.
4. Principles of Natural Justice and procedural fairness.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 19 of the I&B Code:
The NCLT observed that the Respondents failed to comply with the provisions of Section 19 by not providing necessary documents and records to the Resolution Professional (RP). The Respondents claimed that the documents were in the administrative office taken over by the Union Bank of India, but failed to prove this assertion. The plea of being "sleeping directors" was not substantiated with evidence. The NCLT directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the board for consideration of prosecution under Section 70 read with Section 236 of the Code.

2. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT):
The Appellants argued that the NCLT overstepped its jurisdiction by recommending prosecution. They contended that the I&B Code is silent on the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to pass such orders. However, the NCLT clarified that it only made a recommendation for considering the commencement of proceedings and not for initiating criminal proceedings. The final decision rests with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), which must independently assess the situation.

3. Status and Liability of Independent Directors and Non-Executive Directors:
The Appellants argued that as Independent Directors and Non-Executive Directors, they should not be held liable under Section 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013, unless specific criteria are met. They claimed they were not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The NCLT, however, noted that the defence of not possessing knowledge of acts done in violation of law is available only under the Companies Act, 2013, and not under the I&B Code. The NCLT emphasized that Independent Directors are part of the Board and have similar duties and responsibilities as other directors.

4. Principles of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness:
The Appellants claimed that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice as no specific allegations were made against them, and they were not contacted by the RP. The NCLT countered this by stating that the Appellants were given adequate opportunities to furnish the required information. Notices were issued, and the Appellants failed to provide the necessary documents. The NCLT concluded that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of all relevant material and providing due opportunity to the Appellants.

Conclusion:
The NCLT dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Adjudicating Authority acted within its jurisdiction and followed due process. The NCLT's recommendation for considering prosecution was deemed appropriate, leaving the final decision to the IBBI. The appeals were found to be devoid of merit, and the impugned order did not suffer from any patent illegality. The applications seeking to place on record the general circular 1/2020 and seeking exemption to file the certified copy of the circular were allowed and closed, respectively.

Final Decision:
The appeals were dismissed with no costs. The applications related to the general circular 1/2020 were allowed and closed.

---