Resolution Professional's Fraudulent Transaction Claim Rejected: Respondents Not Liable

The Tribunal concluded that the Resolution Professional failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the transactions as fraudulent, leading to the rejection of the application. The respondents were not obligated to contribute to the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of fraudulent transactions by the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor.
2. Examination of whether the transactions were fraudulent and intended to defraud creditors.
3. Adequacy of evidence provided by the Resolution Professional.
4. Analysis of Forensic Audit Report.
5. Applicability of Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
6. Definition and interpretation of 'fraud' under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
7. Impact of ongoing criminal investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Fraudulent Transactions by Ex-Management:
The Resolution Professional (RP) alleged that the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor and related parties conducted business in a fraudulent manner with the intent to defraud creditors. Specifically, the RP pointed to two transactions involving the creation of Fixed Deposits using loan amounts and advancing funds to M/s. Sokeo Power Pvt. Ltd.

2. Examination of Whether Transactions Were Fraudulent:
The Tribunal examined whether the transactions could be classified as fraudulent with intent to defraud creditors. The RP argued that the ex-management's actions constituted fraudulent transactions under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, the Tribunal noted that the transactions in question, such as creating Fixed Deposits and advancing funds, were conducted with the knowledge of the Consortium of Lenders and the Axis Bank, which allowed the management to use the loan amounts.

3. Adequacy of Evidence Provided by the Resolution Professional:
The Tribunal emphasized the need for "clinching and conclusive evidence" to establish fraudulent intent. The RP's initial application was rejected due to insufficient evidence. In the second application, the RP presented additional evidence, including a Forensic Audit Report. However, the Tribunal found the report inconclusive and insufficient to overturn the previous decision.

4. Analysis of Forensic Audit Report:
The Forensic Audit Report prepared by M/s. Haribhakti & Co. was scrutinized. The report contained disclaimers indicating that it was based on limited data and sample verification, making it inconclusive. The Tribunal concluded that the report did not provide sufficient material to establish the transactions as fraudulent.

5. Applicability of Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
Section 66 requires proof that the business was carried out with intent to defraud creditors. The Tribunal noted that the RP failed to demonstrate that the ex-management acted with such intent. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Corporate Debtor was sold as a going concern, indicating that the loan amounts were not entirely misused.

6. Definition and Interpretation of 'Fraud' under the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
The Tribunal referred to Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to define 'fraud.' It emphasized that fraud involves intentional deception or concealment of material facts. The Tribunal found that the transactions in question did not meet this definition, as they were conducted with the knowledge and consent of the lenders and the bank.

7. Impact of Ongoing Criminal Investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):
The Tribunal acknowledged that some members of the Consortium of Lenders had filed an FIR against the respondents, leading to a CBI investigation. The Tribunal decided not to make a definitive ruling on the fraudulent nature of the transactions, leaving it to the investigating agency and competent court to determine the facts.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the RP/Liquidator could not establish that the transactions were fraudulent due to insufficient material evidence. Consequently, the respondents were not required to contribute to the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The application was rejected.

---