TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before this Appellate Tribunal under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'I &B Code, 2016). Brief Facts: 2. An application No. 2844 of 2020 was filed by the Respondent under Section 66 (Fraudulent trading or wrongful trading) of the I & B Code, 2016 against several parties including the Appellant herein/ Respondent No. 8 therein. It has been alleged that certain transactions have been entered into between Appellant herein and the Corporate Debtor i.e. HBN Foods Limited (under CIRP) fraudulently to defraud the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant was aggrieved as he was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and that the Adjudicating Authority issued the 'impugned order' on 13.12.2021. Appellant Submissions:- 3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no outstanding amount which is due and payable to the Corporate Debtor being represented by Respondent herein. Counsel for the Appellant assailed the 'impugned order' dated 13.12.2021 wherein the Adjudicating Authority has directed the Respondent Nos. 2 to 21 (Appellant being Respondent No. 8 therein) to make contribution of Rs. 2687.27 lakhs jointly or severally to the asset of Corpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no. HP04798 in April, 2012 2,51,693/- Tirupati Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Against loan of Rs. 11,35,121/- taken vide agreement no. HP04749 in May, 2011 36,570/- R. Devika Against loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- taken vide agreement no. HP04748 in April, 2011 3,37,290/- TOTAL 7,59,588/- 6. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he has been wrongly made party to I.A. No. 2844 of 2020 by the Respondent when there was no outstanding against him. 7. It is the case of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority erred in passing the 'impugned order' ex-parte without hearing him and without giving any opportunity to defend his case. 8. Counsel for the Appellant further assailed the 'impugned order' wherein it has been ordered to institute a criminal prosecution against various parties i.e including Appellant herein, under Section 69 of the I & B Code, 2016. 9. Concluding his arguments, Counsel for the Appellant urged this Appellate Tribunal to set aside the 'impugned order' and allow his appeal. Respondent Submission:- 10. Counsel for the Respondent denied all averment of the Appellant being false, misleading and with the sole intent to der....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout any documentation. 15. Counsel for the Respondent denied the claim of the Appellant that one Mrs. Manjeet Kaur Sran without any approval of Board of Director/ Shareholders, on its own, instructed the Appellant to adjust amounts and termed alleged letter manufactured by the Appellant in connivance with Mrs. Sran as afterthought by the Appellant to fraudulently validate its alleged adjustment of outstanding dues. 16. Concluding his arguments, Counsel for the Respondent stated that impugned order was delivered after due care taking into account various facts, provisions of law and independent transaction audit and therefore, the appeal need to be set aside being devoid of any merit with heavy cost. Findings 17. Heard Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant' and the 'Respondent' and also perused record made available to us. The Appellant has raised two main points. We will examine them in following discussions:- (I) Denial of Opportunity of Being Heard/ Ex-parte Order:- ➢ As regards, above point we have noted from the averments made by the Respondent that enough opportunities were given by the Adjudicating Authority and an Additional Affidavit was filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 & 02.12.2020. ➢ Therefore, this Appellate Tribunal do not find any error in the 'impugned order' and find that adequate opportunities were made available to the Appellant who has chosen not to respond or defend his case and this cannot be ground of not being heard. (II) No Dues Outstanding & Payable :- ➢ Admittedly, Rs. 30 lakhs were taken by the Appellant from the Corporate Debtor in two tranches i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs on 06.05.2020 and Rs. 10 lakhs on 19.08.2014. It is a case of the Appellant that he had repaid Rs. 10 lakhs on 15.09.2014 vide UTR Transaction No. NTBLR520140915000002. Appellant has tried to make out case that he was given instructions to adjust remaining Rs. 20 lakhs by way of car loans etc., and reproduced the following letter of HBN Foods Limited dated 30.03.2015. ➢ On a pointed query by this Appellate Tribunal to the Appellant as to whom this letter has been issued, reason for issuing this letter, Board of Director's Resolution Authorising Mrs. Sran to issue such letter etc., non- availability of any company seal on above alleged letter, the Appellant could not give any direct and convincing answers. ....