TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 10th May, 2022 passed in I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022 in IB No. 39/PB/2018. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against the Corporate Debtor-Modern Syntex (India) Limited by Order dated 28.03.2022. By Order dated 29.03.2022, public announcement was made by Interim Resolution Professional. The appellant claiming to be Financial Creditor filed his claim under Form-C on 11th April, 2022. The claim submitted by the Appellant was Rs. 12893,39,03,000/-. Claim of the Appellant was received by the IRP and certain more documents were asked for from the Appellant on 18th April, 2022, Appellant was informed that he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C to be declared as related party. Even if it is presumed that assigner company were related parties of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority was obliged to consider that assignment was made five years prior to the initiation of the CIRP. The directions passed in the Impugned Order fall outside the purview of the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. No reasons have been given by the Adjudicating Authority as to why so many documents are being called for and the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying the interim prayer to the Appellant by which stay of convening CoC meeting was asked for. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional refuting the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Adjudicating Authority was well within its jurisdiction to ask for documents to unearth the wholly false and fake claim of the Appellant. 6. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. We may first look into the jurisdiction which Adjudicating Authority can exercise while hearing any Application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 8. National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, Rule 39 and Rule 43 which are relevant for the present case are as follows: "39. Production of Evidence by Affidavit.-(1) The Tribunal may direct the parties to give evidence, if any, by affidavit. (2) Notwithstanding anything c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the relevant laws. (3) Where any party preferring or contesting a petition of oppression and mismanagement raises the issue f forgery or fabrication of any statutory records, then it shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for forensic examination and the Bench hearing the matte may, for reasons to be recorded, either allow the application and send the disputed records for opinion of Central Forensic Science Laboratory at the cost of the party alleging fabrication of records, or dismiss such application." 9. The Application filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022 was essentially challenging the decision of the Resolution Professional required to be scrutinized by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndicate the doubts regarding the claim of the Applicant especially when claim totaled Rs. 12893,39,03,000/- arising out of three assignment deeds which were allegedly shortstamped. 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2010 14 SCC 38] "Ramjas Foundation and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors." where Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following in paragraph 21: "21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases i....