Fraudulent trading under s.66(1) IBC was alleged based on...

Fraudulent trading under s.66(1) IBC was alleged based on suspected round-tripping and non-genuine purchase transactions reflected in the corporate debtor's books. The deciding authority held that absence of purchase invoices, transport/delivery proofs, and supporting payment trails constituted strong circumstantial evidence of sham trading and fund diversion, undermining the claim that payments were in the ordinary course of business. It further held that managing directors, given their control over day-to-day operations, could be held liable where allegations were specific and remained unrebutted, and no breach of natural justice arose as replies were filed and hearing granted. The direction to contribute to the corporate debtor's assets was upheld and the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT

---