Fraudulent removal and replacement of financed, hypothecated...

Fraudulent removal and replacement of financed, hypothecated machinery with lower-value machinery can establish fraudulent trading through cumulative documentary and circumstantial evidence. Financing records, invoices, hypothecation, independent valuations, physical indications of removal, lack of creditor consent, and an unsupported explanation for substituted machinery supported the inference of fraudulent intent. A technical dispute over the machinery's identity did not remove the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal upheld fraudulent trading under the Code and affirmed the contribution direction, finding no basis to treat the quantified depletion of the corporate debtor's assets as arbitrary; depreciation and realisable-value arguments did not displace that finding.