Tribunal upholds Section 7 Application, dismisses challenge on notice validity and loan agreement authenticity.

The Tribunal upheld the admission of the Section 7 Application, dismissing the appellant's challenge regarding the validity of notices served on the Corporate Debtor and the authenticity of the loan agreement dated 31.05.2018. It was determined that the notices were validly served, even though received by another company where the appellant was also a director, and the loan agreement was found to be authentic based on evidence presented, including a letter from the signatory confirming his directorship. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's arguments lacked merit, affirming the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notices served on the Corporate Debtor.
2. Authenticity of the loan agreement dated 31.05.2018.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notices served on the Corporate Debtor
The appellant, a suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, challenged the admission of the Section 7 Application by the Financial Creditor, claiming that the notices were not served properly. The Financial Creditor contended that notices were sent via email and Speed Post to the registered email and address of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including Company Master Data, tracking reports, and affidavits of service. It was found that the notices were duly served on the Corporate Debtor, even though received by another company where the appellant was also a director. The Adjudicating Authority had proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance of the Corporate Debtor on multiple dates. The Tribunal concluded that the notices were validly served, dismissing the appellant's argument.

Issue 2: Authenticity of the loan agreement dated 31.05.2018
The appellant claimed that the loan agreement was forged as the signatory, Rajendra Kumar, was not a director of the Corporate Debtor at the relevant time. However, a letter from Rajendra Kumar himself indicated that he was made a director in all companies of the 3 C Group, including the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found this letter, submitted by the appellant, to support the authenticity of the loan agreement. Additionally, the appellant's reliance on an RTI reply to challenge the agreement was deemed insufficient as the loan disbursement was not denied, and bank statements confirmed the transfer. The Adjudicating Authority also relied on financial information to establish default. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the admission of the Section 7 Application, finding no merit in the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the notices served on the Corporate Debtor and the authenticity of the loan agreement dated 31.05.2018.

---