Appeal denied due to lack of proof of fraud and incomplete payment, rendering claim unsustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Appellant failed to prove fraudulent intent and did not make full payment for the project, rendering the claim for the undelivered Wind Energy Converter unsustainable. The application under Section 66(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was devoid of merit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and closure of connected applications for exemption and direction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 66(1) and 66(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
2. Allegations of fraudulent trading and wrongful trading.
3. Validity of the claim for the delivery of one Wind Energy Converter (WEC).
4. Payment disputes and entitlement to liquidated damages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 66(1) and 66(2) of the IBC:
The Appellant filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, seeking contributions from the Respondents under Section 66(2) of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority noted the distinction between Section 66(1) and 66(2) of the IBC. The scope of these subsections is different, and the Tribunal needed to examine if the transactions alleged by the Applicant fell under 'Fraudulent Trading' as per Section 66(1). The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Anuj Jain IRP for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited, emphasizing that specific material facts must be pleaded to bring a transaction under the mischief of Sections 45/46/47 or Section 66 of the IBC.

2. Allegations of Fraudulent Trading and Wrongful Trading:
The Applicant needed to prove that the business was carried on with the intent to defraud creditors. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to provide documentary proof of dishonest intention by the Respondents. The allegations were not substantiated with evidence, leading to the dismissal of the application under Section 66(1) of the IBC.

3. Validity of the Claim for the Delivery of One WEC:
The Appellant argued that a contract dated 24.01.2018 was executed for developing a 49.5 MW Wind Power Project, and full payment was made for 33 WECs. However, one WEC was not delivered. The Appellant claimed ownership of the undelivered WEC and sought its delivery. The Respondent contended that the Appellant had not made full payment and that Rs.75.63 Crore was still due. The Tribunal noted that the Resolution Plan was approved on 01.02.2022, and the claim of ownership by the Appellant was subject to full payment of the entire consideration. Therefore, the relief sought by the Appellant was not maintainable.

4. Payment Disputes and Entitlement to Liquidated Damages:
The Appellant claimed that it had made an excess payment and was entitled to liquidated damages, which should be set off against the balance sum payable to the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent argued that the Appellant had not made full payment, and the claim for liquidated damages was not substantiated. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's claim for ownership and delivery of the WEC was subject to the full payment of the project consideration, which was not fulfilled.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the application filed by the Appellant was devoid of merits and dismissed the appeal. The connected applications for exemption and direction were also closed. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant failed to prove fraudulent intent and did not make full payment for the project, making the claim for the WEC delivery unsustainable in law.

---