Ex-Director's Appeals Dismissed for Non-Cooperation in Insolvency Process

The appeals filed by a shareholder and former Director against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal (Insolvency). The first appeal challenged a finding of trespassing on a property claimed as personal, not corporate debtor's. The second appeal involved non-cooperation with the Resolution Professional and treatment of personal property as corporate assets. The Appellant's failure to cooperate and produce necessary documents led to dismissal, emphasizing the duty of ex-directors to assist in insolvency processes. The Tribunal upheld the original orders, stressing the importance of cooperation for successful liquidation.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to two appeals filed by a shareholder and erstwhile Director of a company, aggrieved by the orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. The first appeal concerns trespassing on a property allegedly owned by the corporate debtor, while the second appeal is about non-cooperation with the Resolution Professional and the treatment of personal property as an asset of the corporate debtor.

CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 257 of 2023:
In this appeal, the Appellant challenges the order of the Adjudicating Authority regarding trespassing on a property owned by the corporate debtor. The Appellant alleges that the order was passed without proper application of mind and evidence, leading to a finding of trespassing without merit. The Appellant asserts that the property in question is his personal property and not an asset of the corporate debtor, thus contesting the basis of the order.

CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 261 of 2023:
This appeal revolves around the Appellant's alleged non-cooperation with the Resolution Professional and the treatment of his personal property as an asset of the corporate debtor. The Impugned Order restrains the Appellant from trespassing on the property of the corporate debtor and directs him to maintain status quo regarding the scheduled property until the disposal of the case. The order does not determine ownership but emphasizes the need for cooperation to ensure the successful completion of the liquidation process.

Key Details:
The Appellant provided relevant information to the liquidator but was still directed to produce original documents related to the land in question. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the importance of cooperation with the Liquidator as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The judgment highlights the obligation of ex-directors to assist the Resolution Professional/Liquidator for the timely completion of insolvency resolution or liquidation processes. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, stating they lacked merit and did not deserve admission.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---