2021 (9) TMI 753 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal dismisses application alleging forged documents under IBC. IRP role emphasized. Petitioner advised to follow proper channels.

Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) Versus Cleanopolis Energy System India Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application alleging submission of forged documents by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016. ... Initiation of preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the Financial Creditor - direction to competent officer or Registry of this Hon’ble Tribunal to make a complaint in writing and send such complaint in writing to the Magistrate of First-Class having jurisdiction - offences under Sections 193, 199, 200, 463 and 471 of the India Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT:- There is no need to entertain the prayer made here by the Suspended Management/Director, when the Petition filed by the FC for ₹ 7,43,15,000.00 under Section 7 of IBC has been admitted and CD is under Moratorium. IRP has been appointed by this Bench and he is performing his duties as per the provisions specified under Sections 17, 18, 20 & 21 of IBC, 2016. The IRP/RP is duty bound to examine the documents minutely before admitting any claims submitted by the Creditors including the claim of the Applicant. Application rejected. Issues:1. Allegation of submission of forged and fabricated documents by the Financial Creditor in an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.2. Request for directions against the Financial Creditor and its Authorized Signatory for initiating a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Dispute regarding a specific Term Loan III amounting to &8377; 68,15,000.00 out of the total loan sanction of &8377; 7,43,15,000.00.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner alleged that the Financial Creditor, a public sector Bank, submitted forged and fabricated documents in an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, leading to misleading the Tribunal into passing an order dated 7.4.2021. The petitioner claimed that documents like Term Loan III Agreement were fabricated, with the Applicant's signature digitally copied and affixed without authorization. The petitioner sought directions for initiating a preliminary enquiry against the Financial Creditor and its Authorized Signatory for alleged offences under various sections of the IPC, 1860. The Tribunal heard the petitioner's submissions but ultimately rejected the prayer, emphasizing that the IRP/RP is responsible for scrutinizing creditor claims, and the petitioner could address disputes through appropriate channels under the IBC.Issue 2:The petitioner requested the Tribunal to initiate a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Financial Creditor and its Authorized Signatory for alleged offences under Sections 193, 199, 200, 463, and 471 of the IPC, 1860. The petitioner also sought directions for producing original documents for forensic examination. However, the Tribunal concluded that since the Financial Creditor's application under Section 7 of the IBC had been admitted, and the Corporate Debtor was under Moratorium with an IRP appointed, there was no basis to entertain the petitioner's prayer. The Tribunal highlighted the IRP's role in examining creditor claims and suggested the petitioner address any disputes through the appropriate IBC provisions.Issue 3:The dispute centered around a specific Term Loan III amount of &8377; 68,15,000.00 out of the total loan sanction of &8377; 7,43,15,000.00. The petitioner did not contest the Cash Credit and two other Term Loans but raised concerns about the authenticity of the Term Loan III Agreement. Despite the petitioner's contentions, the Tribunal found no merit in entertaining the prayer, as the Financial Creditor's application under Section 7 of the IBC had been admitted, and the IRP was actively managing the Corporate Debtor's affairs. The Tribunal advised the petitioner to address any disputes related to the Term Loan III with the RP/CoC in accordance with the IBC provisions.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application, emphasizing the IRP's role in verifying creditor claims and suggesting the petitioner resolve any disputes through the appropriate channels provided by the IBC.