TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench II in CP(IB)-35(ND)/2017 which 'was thereby confirmed by the impugned order dated 26.02.2021. ii) Quash the warrants of attachment dated 24.12.2019 affixed on property bearing No. G-158, Sector 41, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301 as issued vide impugned orders dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi Bench II in CA-840/C-II/ND/2018 in CP(IB)-35(ND)/2017. iii) Pass any such order/further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 2. By order dated 26.02.2021 the Learned National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adjudicating Authority'), New Delhi has rejected the application vide CA No. 266/C-II/ND/2020 in (IB)-35(ND)/2017. The said application was primarily filed by the appellant to review the order dated 20th December, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in CA-840/C-II/ND/2018 in (IB)-35(ND) of 2017. By the said order the Learned Adjudicating Authority entertaining application filed by the Liquidator which was filed alongwith report of Forensic Auditor observed that since the property belongs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hdrawn from the company account for creating their personal wealth was treated as siphoning of money and cheating, fraud, misrepresentation of facts to company financial position. The Agreement Number LBDEL00000921645 from ICICI Bank and the said loan EMI was auto debit from account No. 63005006943. The said auditor observed that on the aforesaid facts it was evident that directors made a willful attempt for diversion of funds from company account to their personal benefits fraudulently. Hence this amount was liable to be recovered alongwith interest @ 18%. The total amount diverted as a consolidated instalment in view of loan statement taken from ICICI Bank dated 30.08.2018 was Rs. 6529,836.56. The estimated value of the above said property as per special audit report was Rs. 4 crore which was created from the funds of company moving fraudulently for repayment of the loan taken for purchase of this house. The special audit report observed that the said house shall be transferred to company immediately to safeguard the interest of stakeholders especially Service Tax Department, Govt. of India. Rs. 3,91,04,886/- was overdue of Service Tax Department which was to be recovered on sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order, the Appellants have filed an application bearing No. CA No. 266 of 2020 dated 07.01.2020 for modification of the order, before the Adjudicating Authority. After hearing the argument, the Adjudicating Authority has reserved for orders. No order has been passed till date. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that till passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority, the order for handing over the possession of aforesaid property be stayed. 5. We are of the view that the prayer is reasonable and therefore, we pass the order that till passing of the order (in CA No. 266 of 2020 dated 07.01.2020) by the Adjudicating Authority taking the possession of the aforesaid property by the Liquidator is hereby stayed. 6. It is made clear that we are not passing any order on merit and the Adjudicating Authority is free to pass the order without influenced by this Order. 7. The Liquidator who is represented by Mr. Sameer Rastogi is directed not to proceed further in light of this order. 8. With this direction the Appeal is disposed of. Not order as to costs. 9. The Appellant if aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other findings of the Forensic Report in an appropriate manner so as to maximise the liquidation value of assets of the Corporate Debtor." 3. That it was informed by the Ld. Liquidator on 17.08.2020 through the 11th Progress Report filed with this Tribunal vide IA No. 27 44/2020 that the Applicant herein had preferred a Comp. Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 262 of 2020 T.S. Murali & Anr. Vs. Liquidator of Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble NCLAT has passed the following order on. 13.03.2020: "3. It is submitted that after passing the impugned order, the Appellants have filed an application bearing No. C.A. No. 266 of 2020 dated 07.01.20.20 for modification of the order, before the Adjudicating Authority. After hearing the argument, the Adjudicating Authority has reserved for orders. No order has been passed till date. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that till passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority, the order for handing over the possession of the aforesaid property be stayed. 5. We are of the view that the prayer is reasonable and therefore, we pass the order that till passing of the order (in C.A. No. 266 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (Civil) 5412 of 2007, as quoted below: "13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule of law. That principle is not obliterated by section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the court or Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the coordinate bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake, it has accordingly rectified its order. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the said order. We are not going by the doctrine or concept of inherent power. We are simply proceeding on the basis that if prejudice had resulted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Liquidator/Respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of APC Credit Rating Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ROC, NCT of Delhi and Haryana in Company Appeal (AT) No. 206 and 221 of 2017, wherein it was held that the Adjudicating Authority has no general power to review its own order or judgment. 14. It is further submitted by the Liquidator/Respondent that the extra-ordinary power of this Tribunal under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules 2016 cannot be used for review of its own order/judgment. It is added by the Respondent that Rule 154 of NCLT Rules 2016 can only be used for the purpose of rectification of any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the order arising from any accidental slip or omission and not for any other purpose. There being no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the Order of this Tribunal dated 20.12.2019, the present Application is not maintainable. 15. It is further stated by the Liquidator/Respondent that the Law of Limitation is not applicable on the proceedings initiated under Section 66 of IBC 2016 as the Forensic Auditor in his findings has found the ex-management fraudulently diverting funds of the corporate debtor for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is hardly any procedural defect pointed out in admitting the petition filed under Section 9 of IBC. The said order of admission is self-explanatory and conforms to all the requirements necessary for admitting a petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC. Merely for the reason that it was not contested by respondent No. 3, it cannot be said that it was a collusive petition or that the order of admission was obtained by collusion between respondents No. 2 and 3." 20. That Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on para 30 of the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 2004 in the matter of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, which is reproduced overleaf: "30. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, Manifest and self evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id Judgment and again, reiterated in its latest Judgment dated 03.02.2021 in the matter of Adish Jain Vs. Sumit Bansal and Ors. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 379 of 2020, this Bench is of the considered opinion that this Adjudicating Authority does not have and therefore, cannot exercise any "Power to Review" its own Order under Rule 11 of the NCLT rules, 2016 or otherwise. 23. Further to see whether the alleged mistakes as stated by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant and mentioned in Para 11 of this order are the ones, which can be rectified by exercising jurisdiction under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. For adjudicating this, it is necessary to examine the nature of the alleged mistakes, in the light of Section 420(2) of the Companies Act 2013, within the boundaries of the documents available on record: a) In reference to the mistake alleged with respect to the transaction referred to this Adjudicating Authority under Section 66 being barred by Limitation it is seen that it has been rebutted by the Liquidator in his written submissions stating that Law of Limitation is not applicable to the proceedings under Section 66 of IBC 2016. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....12.2019, it is observed that there is no order of cancellation of the sale deed in the order dated 20.12.2019. Only a direction for attachment of the said property and its public auction was given by this Adjudicating Authority with a view to recover and maximise the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor-in-Liquidation. That this Adjudicating Authority is empowered under Section 66(2) of the IBC 2016 to direct the Ex-Directors to make such contribution to the assets of the corporate debtor as it may deem fit. The provision of Section 66(2) of IBC 2016 is reproduced below: ((Fraudulent trading or wrongful trading. 66. (1) ........................................... (2) On an application made by a resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution process, the Adjudicating Authority may by an order direct that a director or partner of the corporate debtor, as the case may be, shall be liable to make such contribution to the assets of the corporate debtor as it may deem fit, if- (a) before the insolvency commencement date, such director or partner knew or ought to have known that the there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding the com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal, then an application for review filed by the concerned Applicant cannot be construed to be one under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act or under Rule 11 of 'NCLAT' Rules, 2016. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the rectification sought is outside the purview of Section 420 of Companies Act, 2013. d) Further, with regard to the argument advanced by the Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Corporate Debtor "that the Loan from ICICI Bank was taken by the Directors in their individual capacity and the Corporate Debtor company has stood as the guarantor and as the ex-Directors failed to repay the loan, the payment was made by the Company in the capacity of a guarantor" ..... the same has been rebutted by the Liquidator in its submissions stating that the Ex-management was the co-applicant for seeking loan from the banker of the Corporate Debtor has no persuasive value as in the case for application for loan to a company, the Directors of the Company are made party to it. In this regard, it is worth perusing the relevant finding of Forensic Auditor, which was placed by the Liquidator and quoted in the Order of this Tribunal dated 20.12.20219 in the CA-840/C-II....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was placed as part of the record of CA-840 J CII/ND/2018 and which is reproduced overleaf: Evidently, the aforesaid Loan Account of ICICI Bank was in the name of the "Helpline Hospitality (P) Ltd." and the Ex-Directors Sh. T.S. Murli and M/s. Rema Murli were the "Co-Applicants" only. The column of the Guarantor, as a matter of fact, is appearing blank in the said statement. It is, therefore, patently wrong to say that the Loan from the ICICI Bank was taken by the Ex-Directors in their individual capacity and the Corporate Debtor company stood as the guarantor. 24. When we again refer to the Judgment passed in the Review Application No. 09 of 2020 Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 in the matter of Deepakk Kumar Vs. M/s. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., we find that the Hon'ble NCLAT has held that: "27. It is worth for this Tribunal to recollect and recall the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Lily Thomas' V. 'Union of India' reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court pg. 1650 at spl. Pg. 1665 wherein it is held that the power to rectify or amend the order is exercised to remove the mistake without disturbing its finality."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uidator: "5. That Corporate Debtor had taken a housing loan of Rs. 36,59,250/- vide Loan Agreement No. LBDEL00000921645 dated 30.10.2004 from ICICI Bank for a tenure of 104 Months (8 Years and 8 Months) period ended on 22.07.2013, for purchasing an immovable property located at Plot No. G-158, Sector-41. Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201302. Total purchase consideration of the above said property was paid as follows: Mode of Payment Date Amount By cheque No.422310 drawn on Punjab National Bank Jor Bagh issued by Helpline Hospitality Pvt Ltd 11.01.2005 4,00,000 By Cheque No.149194 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd, Mumbai against Loan account taken by Helpline Hospitality Pvt Ltd 31.12.2004 25,00,000 By cheque No.149195 drawn on IcICI Bank Ltd, Mumbai against which Loan account taken by Helpline Hospitality Pvt Ltd 31.12.2004 7,00,000 Total 36,00,000 Copy of Loan Account Statement for Loan Account Number LBDEL00000921645, Repayment Schedule Report and Bank Statement of Punjab National Bank are attached herewith..." 3. That the Ld. Liquidator has placed a copy of the Sale Deed of property bearing. Plot No. 158, Block-G, Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of facts to company financial position. The Agreement No. is LBDEL00000921645 from ICICI bank and the said Loan EMI is auto debit from account No. 630005006943. Hence on the basis of facts it is evident that directors made a willful attempt for diversion of funds from company account to their personal benefits fraudulently hence the same amount is liable to be recovered along with interest @ 18%. The Total Amount diverted as an consolidated installment in view of loan statement taken from ICICI bank dated 30.08.2018 is Rs. 65,29,836.56/- The Present estimated market Value of above said property around 4 Crores which is created from the funds of company moving fraudulently for repayment of the loan taken for purchase of this house. This House shall be transfer to Company immediately to safeguard the interest of stakeholders specially Service Tax department, Government of India. Rs. 3,91,04,886/- were overdue of Service Tax Department which can be recovered to sale this property. It is recommended that an early action will support the claim overdue of different stakeholders, the amount can be recovered by the court of law from their personal estate of director....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany. This fact has also been observed in the "Order-in Original No. DLISVTSX002COM0511617" passed by Ms. Aruna N. Gupta, Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi." 8. That the Ld. Liquidator on a clarification sought by this Bench has filed a supplementary Affidavit submitting additional documents on record in support of his averments. That the Ld. Liquidator has placed the Audited Balance Sheets for the Financial Years 2007-08 to 2011-12 reflecting the signatures of Mr. T.S. Murali and Ms. Reema Murali on the said Balance Sheets in the capacity of Directors. 9. Further, Ld. Liquidator has placed on record the Order dated 25.01.2017 passed by Ms. Aruna N. Gupta, Commissioner of Service Tax in Original Application No. DLISVTAX002COM0511617, whereby, the Ld. Commissioner had made the following observations: "21. Shri TS. Murali again appeared under summons to tender his statement on 09.09.2014 (RUD-33) and stated that in HHPL, he was only an authorized signatory. On being shown the balance sheets for the year 2009-10 to 2011-12 of HHPL received from Registrar of Companies (RUD-21) where his name was written alongwith his position in the company as 'Director&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reimbursed the loan amount to the Company Le, M/s. Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Thus, Respondents have failed to bring anything on record which is contrary to the observations made by the Forensic Auditor in its report. Mere resignation of Director from the Company does not absolve the Director/Respondent concerned from any financial impropriety/irregularity committed during his tenure as Director. 14. Further, perusal of the Loan Account Statement' of ICICI Bank on record makes it amply clear that the loan to purchase the property bearing No. G-158, Sector 41, Noida, U.P. was availed by the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s. Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The said Loan's EMIS were being deducted as auto-debit from the accounts of the Corporate Debtor, as confirmed by the report of Forensic Auditor. Moreover, the Cheques reflected towards payment of EMIS of Rs. 36,00,000 in the Transfer Deed cum Sale Deed dated 09.02.2005 matches and are from the Bank Accounts of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, it is clear that the property in question has been procured by utilizing the funds of the Corporate Debtor and, hence, the same deems to be the asset of the company. Here it is wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to Section 43(4), 44, 45 and 46 of the Code to satisfy this Tribunal that NCLT has incorrectly entertained the petition filed by the liquidator and passed order dated 20.12.2019. He has further argued that the order dated 20.12.2019 was passed contrary to the record and this was the reason that immediately after passing of the order dated 20.12.2019 the appellant herein filed an application for modification of the order only on 07.01.2020 which was numbered as CA-266/C-II/ND/2020 in (IB)-35(ND)/2017. 10. Shri Tiku, learned senior counsel submits that in CA No. 266/2020 after hearing on 04.01.2020 the order was reserved. However, since immediately no order was passed the appellant was left with no option but to file an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal which was registered as Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 262/2020. The said appeal was filed on 1.2.2020 assailing the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the NCLT. He has drawn our attention to para XII of Memo of Appeal filed before this Tribunal which is at Volume II Page 370. He submits that in earlier appeal filed before this Tribunal in para 12 at running page 370 the Appellant made a statement that as a way of abundant pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the Court that the Learned Adjudicating Authority without any jurisdiction has tried to cancel the sale deed and considered the property in question as Benami Property. 13. Shri Tiku, learned senior counsel submits that since in the earlier order i.e. order dated 20.12.2019 there was apparent error which was contrary to record the learned Adjudicating Authority exercising its jurisdiction under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was well within its jurisdiction to rectify the same. However, the Learned Adjudicating Authority only on the ground that under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules exercising inherent jurisdiction was not competent to review earlier order rejected the review petition. He contends that the Adjudicating Authority has further committed error in not exercising its review jurisdiction and correcting the earlier order by its subsequent order i.e. order dated 26.02.2021 has also been assailed in the present appeal. In sum and substance it has been argued that both the orders i.e. order dated 20.12.2019 and order dated 26.02.2021 are liable to set aside. Besides making oral submission on behalf of the appellant Notes of Written submission has also been filed wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibute to the assets of the Corporate Debtor to the tune of Rs. 65,29,836/- as per the own averments of the Respondent herein in terms of the Orders dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority which is as follows: ORDER DATED 01.10.2019: "Ld. Counsel for the liquidator submits that the expenses of Rs. 1.12 crores by respondent No. 3 & 4 have been accepted by him. The only issue which remains is in respect of the home loan taken by the non-applicant for Rs. 65,29,836/-. To come up on 9th October 2019 to evidence return of this loan account as alleged." That in view of the aforesaid order and submissions made by the Respondent herein, Order dated 09.10.2019 was passed by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority which is as follows: Relevant portion of Order dated 09.10.2019: "The short point which remained for consideration was regarding recovery of the housing loan availed from icici home loans in the name of the corporate debtor and repaid by the corporate debtor" That in view of the above the Respondent is bound to confine itself to the said Orders which were passed on the statements and instructions of the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the said transaction was carried on with the intention of defrauding the creditors since at the time of registration of sale deed in year 2005 there was no liability pending upon the corporate debtor thus the question of defrauding the creditors does not even arise and even at the time of repayment of the home loan there was no liability on the Corporate Debtor till the year 2013 when the home loan was fully repaid and closed in its entirety. It is submitted that the insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor were initiated in the year 2017 i.e. after 12 years of purchase of the property. G) That the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding the transaction to be fraudulent wherein the property was purchased by the Appellant No. 1 in his name through a registered sale deed in the year 2005 and the home loan was taken in the joint names of the Corporate Debtor and the Appellants and was repaid from the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. At best it is a case wherein the contribution has been taken from the Corporate Debtor and the Appellants can be directed repay the said amount to the Corporate Debtor. H) That the Hon'ble Adjudicating A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the Corporate Debtor" as provided u/s. 25 (1) of the Code for which purposes the actions as contemplated under Section 25 (2) of the Code can be initiated by the Resolution Professional and the exercise of such power by the Resolution Professional as encapsulated in Para 12(A) is independent of and distinct from the powers of the Liquidator as provided by Section 35 of the Code. L) That the scope of power under Section 25(2)(1) of the Code is for avoidance of transaction in accordance with the Chapter III of the IBC, 2016. And the avoidance of transactions as contemplated by the IBC, 2016 is provided under Section 45 of IBC, 2016 with the caveat of Section 46 of the said Code with an order to be passed under Section 48 of the Code. M) That as such the impugned order negating the sale deed dated 09.02.2005 is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority as well as Section 66 and 67 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 since at the time of taking of loan, the Company was not a corporate debtor as insolvency proceedings were initiated in year 2017. N) That assuming though not admitting, that the averment made by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered in the name of the corporate debtor and which the ex directors, illegally by misusing their position, have got registered in their name. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the appellants has been filed with mala fide and the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 20.12.2019 and subsequently vide order dated 26.02.2021 has rightly directed the appellants to make the loss good by transferring the said immoveable property in the name of the corporate debtor. 4. That the Company Application No. 840/2018 had been basically filed under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 though in the heading of the application Section 25(2)(j) has been mentioned. it is settled law that once a fraud is always a fraud and there is no look back period under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2018 like other provisions of the law. Therefore, the appellants are with mala fide giving emphasis on Section 25(2)(j) which has a mere reference in the said application and emphasis has been solely given to Section 88 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2018. Moreover, the Resolution Professional was further appointed as Liquidator. Section 25(2)(j) ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave wrongly alleged that the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority has inferred the said transaction as Benaami transaction contrary to the facts that the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority in the aforesaid orders has never inferred the said transaction as Benaami transaction. In fact, the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority has only referred the submissions made by the parties which has been wrongly alleged by the appellants that the same has been held to be Benaami transaction by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have overriding effect over the Benaami Transactions and Prohibition Act, 1988 8. That the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants to camouflage the misdeeds perpetrated in the financial affair of the corporate debtor as they illegally purchased an immovable property in their name out of the loan taken and repaid by the corporate debtor and now they are hopelessly taking excuse of limitation knowing full well that under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, there is no prescribed look back period and once a fraud is always a fraud and the offence committed by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debtor and therefore, should vest in the corporate debtor which has been rightly directed by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 20.12.2019 and 26.02.2021." 17. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining Notes of written submission we have perused the materials available on record and prima facie we are of the opinion that the appeal is fit to be rejected outrightly. From the facts enumerated hereinabove it is evident that for purchase of the property in question, loan was obtained in joint name of company/corporate debtor and both the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the loan amount was repaid from the account of the corporate debtor/company. However, at the time of registration to the reasons best known to the appellants the said property was got registered in the name of Appellant No. 1. It has also been noticed that after getting the said property registered which was purchased from the fund of corporate debtor, sometime in the year 2006 both the appellants tendered resignation as directors of the company. However, subsequently it has been noticed by the competent authority that the said company was being run by both the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribution to the assets of the corporate debtor as it may deem fit, if- (a) before the insolvency commencement date, such director or partner knew or ought to have known that the there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding the commencement of a corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of such corporate debtor; and (b) such director or partner did not exercise due diligence in minimising the potential loss to the creditors of the corporate debtor. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section a director or partner of the corporate debtor, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have exercised due diligence if such diligence was reasonably expected of a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by such director or partner, as the case may be, in relation to the corporate debtor. Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no application shall be filed by a resolution professional under sub-section (2), in respect of such default against which initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process is suspended as per Section 10-A." 19. On perusal of the aforesaid section it is evident that if during liquidation pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e. CA No. 266/2020 dealing with each and every aspects which were raised by the appellant. 21. Before the Adjudicating Authority in its review petition the Appellants had raised two points. Firstly permit the appellant to deposit sum of Rs. 6529836/- that too over a period of 6 months and secondly to modify order dated 20.12.2019. The amount which was offered by the appellant to be paid in instalment was a debt which had occurred long back, whereas offer was made in the year 2019. The loan amount was Home Loan amount in a property of which value has enhanced to the extent of Rs. 4 crore as per prevailing market price. Moreover, during the liquidation proceeding it was difficult for Adjudicating Authority to accept such a proposal. 22. So far as argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on modification of the order is concerned, it is required to be examined as to whether the Adjudicating Authority can review its own order and is there any apparent mistake contrary to the record in the order dated 20.12.2019. It was argued that said order can be modified exercising jurisdiction under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules or under Section 420 of the Companies Act. However....