Fraudulent transfer under insolvency law requires cogent proof; concurrent findings upholding the sale were left undisturbed.

Under insolvency law, a sale transaction was not shown to be void or fraudulent merely on an allegation that it lacked consideration and was intended to defeat creditors. The applicant had to prove fraudulent intent or a fraudulent purpose, but the record showed no pending creditor claim or suit at the time of sale, the debtor was classified as NPA only later, and the property was later described in the debtor's prospectus as already sold. The registered sale deed contained a recital of payment, attracting a presumption of due execution, and that presumption was not rebutted by cogent evidence. The SC found the concurrent factual findings of the NCLT and NCLAT plausible and declined appellate interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned sale transaction could be declared void and fraudulent under the insolvency law on the ground that it was allegedly without consideration and intended to defraud creditors, and whether interference was warranted in appeal against concurrent findings rejecting that plea.

Analysis: To attract the fraudulent trading and related proceedings under the insolvency code, the applicant had to establish material showing that the corporate debtor carried on business or entered into the transaction with intent to defraud creditors or for a fraudulent purpose. The record did not show any pending creditor claim or suit at the time of the sale, the account of the corporate debtor was declared NPA only later, and the disputed property was shown in the debtor's own later prospectus as already sold. The registered sale deed carried a recital of payment, which carried a presumption of due execution, and the liquidator failed to rebut that presumption with cogent evidence. The concurrent factual findings of the NCLT and the NCLAT that no fraudulent transfer was made out were held to be plausible, leaving no substantial question of law for appellate interference.

Conclusion: The transaction was not proved to be fraudulent or void, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

---