TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Senior Advocate, Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Advocate, Ms. Shivangi Thard, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Sristi Barman Roy, Advocate For the Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Shreeradha Ghosh, Advocate, Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent No. 7 : Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Advocate, Ms. Sweta Mohanty, Advocate ORDER This court convened via video conferencing. 2. I.A. (IB) No. 750/KB/2020 has been filed Mr. Santosh Choraria, Resolution Professional of Suraj Fabrics Industries Limited seeking directions to be passed upon Respondents to jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs. 11,83,12,330 to the Corporate Debtor in terms of Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankrupt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and Regulations governing Corporate Insolvency Process? b. Whether this application can survive after the Resolution Plan is approved? Submission of the Resolution Professional 9. The Ld. Counsel for the RP submits that the forensic audit report was discussed at the CoC meeting held 20.03.2020 and from the perusal of the said report, it appeared that there have been certain transactions which are preferential in nature. The Corporate Debtor had repaid unsecured loans/advances/outstanding balances, details of which are as below: Entity Amount Remark Bengal Recyclers & Fabrications Private Limited Rs. 7,35,000/- ---- Bengal India Global Infrastructure Rs. 11,12,95,000/- Out of the above payments amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 and on 12.08.2020, this Adjudicating Authority approved the resolution plan. 14. The Corporate Debtor has received financial accommodation/advances to the tune of Rs. 4,95,000/- from the Respondent No. 4 on different dates in the year 2018-19. In the month of June,2019, an on-account payment of Rs. 7,35,000/- was made by the Corporate Debtor, an excess payment of Rs. 2,40,000/- made to the Respondent No. 4 was realized in June,2019. It is averred that all these transactions have been done during the normal course of business of the Corporate Debtor and is not a preferential transaction. 15. That the Corporate Debtor had taken an unsecured loan from the Respondent No. 6 in 2012-13 which was payable on demand. That the Corporate Debto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore entering into the merits of the case, it is important to consider whether the RP has adhered to the timeframe in bringing the case for avoidance of preferential transactions in light before us, hence, it is important to note the timeline of the present application. Regulation 35A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India [Insolvency Resolution Process for the Corporate Persons] Regulations, 2016 [CIRP Regulations] provides specific time frame within which the RP has to form an opinion and apply before the Adjudicating Authority. To make it simpler, a chart to show whether the RP has followed the timeframe is given below: Sl. No. Event Timeline according to CIRP Regulations Expected Date Actual Date Days from 01.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons for determination of preferential transactions other than the explanation as per the Forensic Auditor's report. We are also satisfied with the explanations preferred by the Respondents in regard to the transactions in question. 22. We cannot avoid the fact that the RP had filed an application for approval of the Resolution Plan on 14.07.2020 and thereafter filed an application under Section 43 of the Code on 24.07.2020. The Resolution Plan was approved on 12.08.2020. On perusal of the order dated 12.08.2020, it is apparent that the RP had prayed for urgent hearing of the application for approval of the Resolution Plan. The RP was duty bound to file the application for preferential transaction within time and also seek for urgent ....