2025 (5) TMI 2182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ORDER (HYBRID MODE) [PER: (ORAL) JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN] Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 976 of 2024 This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.04.2024 by which application bearing IA No. 1626 of 2023 filed by the RP of the Corporate Debtor namely M/s Satra Properties (India) Ltd. for seeking the relief that "(b) Be pleased to pass an order u/s. 66 of the Code directing the Respondent Nos. 2, 5 to 9 to remit/refund the amount of INR 2.65 Crore along with interest @ 18% p.a. in the bank account of the Corporate Debtor to compensate the loss suffered by the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor with respect to Transaction No. 2;" has been allowed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4 years of it having been given and the promoters have shifted to USA in last 6 years from the year of reply, we do not find coherence in the contention of Respondent no. 5 to 9 in this relation. In the absence of any details having been brought on record even in relation to target property, the transaction, in question, is fraudulent act on the part of suspended board. We do not find any substance in the contention of Respondent No. 5 to 9 that they had derived no benefit from this transaction. 7.6.1. The Resolution Professional has relied upon decision in the case of Shri Baiju Trading & Investment Private Limited Vs. Arihant Nanawati and Others Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 611/2021 and Shri Dhatu Kirti Developer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 2.65 Crore which was given as EMD (advance) by the Company as a Vendee to the Vendor namely, Sanvruta Properties Pvt. Ltd. was written off in 2010 but it was in March 2020. 7. He has further submitted that before the aforesaid amount was written off, the appellant tried to recover the amount from the Vendor Company but the promoters of the Vendor Company left for USA. 8. He has thus submitted that the appellants had tried to recover the amount in question but it could not recover it because of the aforesaid reason, therefore, the case set up by RP under Section 66 is not made out. 9. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent/RP. 10. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the appellant has been candid ....