TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent and allow the authorised representatives of the Applicants to attend the Committee of Creditors meeting, until the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. c. Direct the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents herein to abide by the order of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai dated 16.04.2018. d. Direct the 3rd, 4th, & 5th Respondents herein not to interfere in the decisions of the 2nd Respondent herein in admitting the claims of the Applicants herein. e. Direct the 2nd Respondent to conduct forensic audit of the 1st Respondent Company to investigate into the affairs of the 1st Respondent Company as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. f. To pass necessary orders/directions against the 6th Respondent for the violations of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013." 3. The case of the Applicants is that the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor viz. M/s. Ashok Magnetics Limited had approached Finance Agents viz., V.G. Mardia and P.G. Mardia in order to secure Working Capital/Short Term Loan for running their business. The Finance Agent rallied finance from the Applicants herein and provided fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein he has stated that since the monies given by the Applicants have been credited into the account of the Corporate Debtor, the Resolution Professional had admitted the claims of the Applicants. Pursuant to which, the Authority has passed Order on the same day i.e., 16.04.2018 and directed the Applicants to send their authorised representative to the meeting of the CoCs of the Corporate Debtor and also directed the Resolution Professional to issue notice to the Applicants' authorised representative with regard to the CoCs of the 1st Respondent Company. The copy of Order dated 16.04.2018 is placed at page 44 of the typed set filed with the Application. 9. It is averred that the authorised representative of the Applicants attended the 6th meeting of the CoCs, however, the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had opposed the admission of claims of the Applicants and did not allow the authorised representative of the Applicants to attend the CoCs meeting and he was forced to leave the meeting hall by the Members of the CoCs and had also forced the Resolution Professional to send the authorised representative of the Applicants or else they would leave the meeting of the CoCs. Thereafter, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 or its rules of its regulations grant power to the Financial Creditors to challenge the authenticity/validity of a claim filed by another Financial Creditor once it has been admitted by the Resolution Professional and the Applicants cannot be held responsible for the mistake on the part of the Directors of the 1st Respondent and the 6th Respondent, the Chartered Accountant of the 1st Respondent, for not disclosing that they had received sums from the Applicants. Therefore, the Applicants have prayed that their claims be admitted by the Resolution Professional in an impartial manner. 13. The Resolution Professional has filed the Preliminary Counter on 17.07.2018 wherein it has been stated that the Application has been filed by 40 persons each with separate cause of action, by way of single cause of action which is not maintainable as is a mis-joinder of cause of action. The issue of admissibility of the claims which arises merely from incompleteness of datas submitted by the Applicants, and set out to the Applicants by e-mail information to be furnished by each of the Applicant in support of their claim within 7 days' time to respond and also in exercise of powers conferred un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Professional had concluded in the CoCs meeting held on 01.06.2018 that the Corporate Debtor goes into liquidation as per Section 33 of IBC since the resolution plans were voted against by all CoC members. 19. It is further stated by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in its counter that the Applicants have made a frivolous claim belatedly based on Demand Promissory Note purported to have been executed by the Corporate Debtor, and it is not out of context to mention that the alleged borrowing by the Corporate Debtor did not reflect in the audited balance sheet for the assessment year 2014-2015. 20. It is further stated that the Resolution Professional had already observed that Demand Promissory Notes expired and not renewed by the Corporate Debtor, prior to the alleged borrowing and no Board Resolution has been passed by the Corporate Debtor which is mandatory, and according to the Applicants, apart from Corporate Debtor, the Directors of Corporate Debtor have also independently executed Demand Promissory Notes which cannot be considered by the Resolution Professional detrimental to the interest of CoC, and moreover, as the Directors of Corporate Debtor have executed the Demand Promisso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by him and so this Application does not call for any consideration on merits. 24. It is further stated in the Counter that Application do not warrant any forensic auditing and the Applicants have not even established a prima-facie case to seek such a relief, and the Applicants have not even filed single material evidence supporting the relief seeking forensic audit and Applicants are seeking for a roving enquiry without any basis. Therefore, the 6th Respondent has prayed to dismiss the Application with costs. 25. Based on the above pleadings, the issue that arises for consideration of this Authority is as to whether the claim of the Applicants for an amount of Rs. 1,50,94,000/- is due from the Corporate Debtor and the same is admissible, and consequently the representative for the Applicants is entitled to participate in the CoCs. 26. In the earlier proceedings under CA/98/2018 filed in CP/551/2017, a Memo has been filed by the Resolution Professional on behalf of the Corporate Debtor viz., M/s. Ashok Magnetics Limited wherein the claim of the Applicants had been admitted and it was submitted before this Authority by the Resolution Professional that keeping in view the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty dated 20.03.2018. 29. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 reveals that the Respondents are aware that the Corporate Debtor had paid interest on 17.10.2015 on the amount of loans/advances, the detail of which can be seen from the documents filed by the Respondent No.6, which is a copy of the Plaint of one of the Applicants and numbered as OS/1495/2017 filed before the City Civil Court at Chennai, wherein under para 6 at page 11, it has been stated that on 17.10.2015, the Corporate Debtor had sent a consolidated amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by RTGS with UTR No. BKIDH 15290715272 to the account of M/s. P.G. Mardia & V.G. Mardia, finance agents of the Applicants, who in turn paid the amount through cheques to the Applicants. 30. Besides the above, there are Promissory Notes given by the Corporate Debtor through their directors/authorised signatories to the Applicants. These documentary evidences have not been controverted by the Resolution Professional or Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 or the Respondent No.6. 31. The Resolution Professional has raised an issue under Para 7 of his reply filed on behalf of the Corporate Debtor that the provisions of section 58A of t....