TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondents : Ms. Khushboo Shah Rajani and Mr. Ayush J Rajani, Advocates for R-1. Respondents : Ms. Khushboo Shah Rajani and Mr. Ayush J Rajani, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak and Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocates for R-2 to 5. Mr. Gaurav Shrawat and Ms. Bhavika Thakkar, Advocates for Intervenor ORDER (Virtual Mode) Both these Appeals have been filed against the same judgment of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench, Court No. V dated 17.11.2021 passed in I.A. No. 107/2021 which was filed by the Resolution Professional. By the order dated 17.11.2021, the Adjudicating Authority while disposing I.A. No. 107/2021 following directions have been passed in Para 37:- "37. In view of the above th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssigned different voting rights in value of the amount admitted. I.A. No. 107/2021 was filed by the Resolution Professional praying that the Appellant alongwith one other should be removed from the CoC and entire voting rights of the Appellants be cancelled. The Appellants' case is that in I.A. No. 107/2021 notices were issued and they had filed their replies on 29.05.2021, 31.05.2021 and 01.06.2021. It is submitted that written submissions were also filed by the Appellants' on 19.07.2021 after the order was reserved on 16.07.2021. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has directed for removal of Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 from the CoC and also as Financial Creditor - Home Buyer. The reason given by the Adjudicating Authority in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submits that reply in so far as Appellants in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 26 of 2022 is concerned a copy of the written submission and an unsigned copy of reply was served to the Resolution Professional. He, however, does not dispute that the claim of the Appellants was admitted, submits that the Adjudicating Authority passed order on the basis of circuitous transaction of Rs. 10 Lakhs. With regard to Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 67 of 2022, learned counsel for Resolution Professional submits that ex-directors have no locus to challenge the order impugned and the Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 67 of 2022 which deserves to be dismissed having lack of locus. 6. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Para 22 indicate that Adjudicating Authority was under impression that the entire money invested by the Home Buyers have been rooted back to the relatives of Respondent No. 3 to 7, which is obviously not the position and the same ought to have been cleared by the Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority. 9. In so far as Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 67 of 2022 is concerned, we also do not agree with the submission of the Resolution Professional that Ex-Directors have no locus to file the Appeal. In the Application I.A. No. 107/2021 which was filed by the Resolution Professional it was clearly sought that Respondent No. 1 and 2, who are the Ex-Directors, be directed to contribute Rs. 70 Lakhs back to the Corporate Debtor. ....