TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted by the applicant that the Financial Creditor, Electroparts (India) Pvt.Ltd.,has obtained an order of CIRP from this Adjudicating Authority by way of practicing blatant fraud. The order of CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor was passed by this Adjudicating Authority on 14.09.2021 (Annexure- A page 22-23 of this application). 3. It is further submitted that order of admission was obtained on the basis of fraudulent and manufactured documents for a fictitious and imaginary transaction in collusion with unknown third parties claiming to represent the Corporate Debtor without any authority, who fraudulently admitted liability though there was none. It is further submitted that the order of CIRP is a nullity, since the claimed date of default was 15.12.2020 which is hit by section 10A of the Code, which prohibits any application from being filed in respect of any date of default within the period from 25.3.2020 to 24.3.2021. 4. It is further submitted that the Applicant owns and holds 5000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each in the Corporate Debtor, Videocon Infinity Infrastructure Private Limited. The applicant is one of the two promoters of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, no response was received to such communication. The Applicant's nominee director Ajay Kumar Jalan also tendered his resignation as a director and ceased to be a director of the Corporate Debtor on and with effect from June 7, 2019 9. It is further submitted that the applicant was shocked to learn on September 17,2021 from an email from one of its Ex-directors, Ajay Kumar Jalan issued by Respondent No.2 herein as IRP of the Corporate Debtor, that CIRP had been initiated in respect of the Corporate Debtor. (Annexure-G to the application). 10. From the order dated 14th 2021, it transpired that Section 7 application had been filed and proceeded with collusively and that the order had been obtained by the Applicant by practicing fraud on this Adjudicating Authority. It appears from the order that the Section 7 application was filed by the Respondent No.1 pursuant to a board resolution dated April 15, 2020. The applicant submits that this is indication of the fraud practiced on this Adjudicating Authority because the alleged transaction with the Corporate Debtor was on June 1, 2020 and thus, there was no occasion for Respondent No.1 to pass any Board Resolution on April 15, 2020 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the Dhoot promoter family and entities under their control. Furthermore, there is a declaration filed under section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013, acknowledging that the significant beneficial owner of 32.37% shares each held by Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Waluj Components Pvt. Ltd., is Saurabh Pradipkumar Dhoot, a promoter of Videocon group. 16. It is submitted that the Quadrant loan receivable was allegedly assigned in favour of the Corporate Debtor by Respondent No.1 for an alleged consideration amount of Rs.30 crores. The date of the alleged transaction is mentioned to be June 1, 2020. The alleged transaction is not in the ordinary course of business of the Corporate Debtor which is a real estate joint venture, not engaged in business of lending. Additionally, the Corporate Debtor's last filed balance sheet for 2016-17 makes it clear that it has no running business or any significant assets to speak of. The assets are shown to be only of Rs. 1.56 crores, out of which the major chunk of Rs.1.26 crores is on account of "Preliminary Expenses" and "Pre-operative expense pending allocation". There was absolutely no basis for the Corporate Debtor to have undertaken a l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Corporate Debtor had allegedly admitted its liability and sought for 6 months' time to repay the same in monthly instalments. Since there was nobody actually authorized to represent the Corporate Debtor, no such admission could have been made on behalf of the Corporate Debtor and neither could any such submissions have been made or any concession sought. The name of one Mr. Ashwini Kumar is mentioned in paragraph 19 of the order as allegedly claiming to be "authorised signatory" of the Corporate Debtor that too, without being able to produce any board resolution passed by the board of directors of the Corporate Debtor. It is also recorded in the order that the counsel purportedly appearing on behalf of the Corporate Debtor had submitted that the Corporate Debtor was about to sell some assets to discharge its socalled liability. Such submission is absurd in view of the fact that the Corporate Debtor has no assets to speak of apart from some minor entries in the last balance sheet of 2016-17. It is further recorded that notice of the proceedings was given to the corporate debtor. The registered office of the corporate debtor at SECTOR-V, BLOCK BP SALT LAKE CITY KOLKATA - 700091 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Creditor's own showing were not issued as on that date. 24. It is submitted that in exhibit "E" (page 9) there is mention of a "pending offer" from VRIL to "clear liability" of the alleged corporate debtor. Firstly, even from the supplementary affidavit it is evident that there was no such offer that was pending as on September 29, 2021. Secondly, if there was any genuine proposal to clear the liability of the alleged corporate debtor, there could be no question of recovery of any amount from the alleged corporate debtor or taking any action against the alleged corporate debtor. However, the alleged minutes are totally contradictory. On the one hand, it talks of clearing the corporate debtor's liability whereas on the other hand it talks of "breach of contract" by corporate debtor and taking steps against corporate debtor for recovery of entire amount, even after settlement by VRIL. This is absurd and illogical and mala fide. It is evident that the whole objective behind this alleged new arrangement is only to avoid any adverse scrutiny from this Tribunal regarding the fraudulent nature of the Section 7 proceeding and to overcome the bar of Section 10-A by manipulating and inventi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that the purported stamp in all the pages of the alleged consent terms bear the name "Videocon Infrastructure Private Limited". There is no entity in existence by such name. It is ex-facie apparent that the said stamp has been hurriedly procured solely for the purpose of use in the alleged consent terms. At the bottom of page 15 of the supplementary affidavit, even the name of the alleged corporate debtor has been wrongly typed as "Videocon Infrastructure Private Limited". The purported signature of the person allegedly signing on behalf of the alleged corporate debtor is also illegible and deliberately no name of the person is mentioned so as to avoid adverse scrutiny. In addition, though the identification details of the person signing the alleged consent terms on behalf of the alleged Financial Creditor are provided, no such identification proof is given qua the person allegedly signing for the alleged corporate debtor. 28. It is submitted that the purported notarization of the alleged consent terms is ex-facie procured and is not genuine. The purported notarization is not in accordance with law. There is no name of the notary public mentioned. There is also no identifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and later on settled the matter by payment of Rs.30 Lacs, which cheques although were given on behalf of the Corporate Debtor by some unknown person and are stated to have not been encashed by the Financial Creditor. Both the parties have given a somewhat shady picture which does not bring out a real truth in this matter. This matter needs to be further investigated. 32. We, therefore, pass the following orders:- a) The entire transaction as narrated in the Section 7 application is plainly imaginary, concocted and fraudulent. The CD does not appear to have had any genuine liability towards the alleged FC and the entire documentation has evidently been prepared by the alleged FC in collusion with Videocon Group entities. The alleged documents disclosed in the Supplementary Affidavit of the alleged FC, far from helping its case, further demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the documents. b) In the circumstances, the alleged FC is guilty of practicing and committing fraud on this Tribunal and therefore, as per Section 65 of the Code, penalty of Rs.50 lakh is imposed on the alleged FC and the CIRP stands vitiated and terminated due to the fraud committed. In any event, even apart....