TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., failing which, to pay the same with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order till the date of its realisation, to the liquidation estate. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein have filed this company appeal. 2. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), as against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 26.11.2019 in TIBA/34/KOB/2022, and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. On 17.06.2022, the learned Tribunal replaced the existing RP and had appointed the respondent herein to function as the RP of the Corporate Debtor. Since no resolution plan could be obtained, within the prescribed period, based on the resolution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), liquidation was ordered by the learned NCLT on 28.10.2022 in IA(IBC)/189/KOB/2022, and the Respondent herein was appointed to function as Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. 3. On verification of the records and the report of auditor and after verifying the two bank accounts that were standing in the name of "Axiomata Elevators", and after collecting information from the customers of the Corporate Debtor stating that they have paid their dues to these accounts, the liquidator ide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bank Limited (bearing account number no. 084101000000169), using the PAN card of the Corporate Debtor, but by giving a false address and collected money from existing customers of the Corporate Debtor and had thereafter closed those accounts after withdrawing the entire amount thus collected in cash, which was identified only after perusal of 26AS statement of Income Tax. The Appellants did not furnish any evidence to the contrary that these amounts were used for the business of the Corporate Debtor and that it proves that the Appellants indulged in these transactions to defraud the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. 5. The learned NCLT also observed that the dubious manner in which the car was sold and the following acts of the Appellants, where the files were taken away from the auditor, attempt was made to break open the lock of the office of the Corporate Debtor and Bank transactions that were carried on even after commencement of CIRP, it establishes that the Appellants have least regard for law and accordingly held that the Appellants have indulged in fraudulent transactions and are hence liable to pay the amount claimed in the application, jointly, and severally. 6. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he defence taken by the Appellants, and that the Appellants were not provided an opportunity to produce all relevant evidence before the learned NCLT, as they were unable to retrieve the key documents during the CIRP and that the learned Tribunal failed to grant sufficient time to the Appellants to present a complete defence, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. They have further submitted that, as per the principles of natural justice, no order should be passed without giving both the parties a fair opportunity to present their case, and that the impugned order does not contain detailed reasoning for the findings which were recorded, making it a non-speaking order. Further, that the Hon'ble Apex court in SN Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594, held that a reasoned order is necessarily required to be passed, so as to satisfy the requirements of natural justice and that in the light of the above facts, circumstances, and arguments advanced, it was prayed for that, this Appellate Tribunal may remit the matter back to the learned NCLT for fresh adjudication and render justice. 9. It is observed that, the Appellants herein (Former Directors of the Corporate Debto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same was harassment and expressed their intention not to attend the said meeting on 29.07.2022. Since the appellants had voluntarily chosen not to provide any explanation to the Liquidator, the Liquidator, acted based on the material he had, formed the determination that the said transactions were clearly transactions which were carried with an intent to defraud the creditors. He has also argued that the payments made in the absence of any vouchers, ledgers, or any supporting documents, especially after the service of the demand notice by the operational creditor, are to be held to be fraudulent because the appellants had carried out such transactions, knowing fully well that the admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP. The mere fact that the transactions have been done through banking channels, that itself will not make such transactions genuine, especially when there is a complete absence of vouchers, bills, and other proof regarding the reasons for such payments. More particularly, when such evidence were also not adduced before the learned NCLT. In the absence of there being any such documents, to substantiate that such payments and the explanations to establish that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf based on the documentary evidence was clearly able to make a determination regarding existence of such PUFE transactions, thus there was no requirement for appointment of a Forensic auditor. 13. He has finally submitted that the Appellants have not questioned the findings and the observations made by the learned Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 14 of the impugned order regarding the conduct of the Appellants in attempting to break open the lock and in removing certain crucial files for which an appropriate police complaint had been lodged, in their pleadings in the instant Company Appeal, and therefore it has to be accepted that the learned Adjudicating Authority had, on the basis of the documentary evidence on record and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary produced by the Appellants, passed a well-reasoned order holding that, the Appellants herein had indulged in established fraudulent transactions and that both the Appellants are liable to pay the amounts as claimed in the Application jointly and severally, and hence the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. The primary issue for consideration before the learned NCLT was, as to whether the Appellants herein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. Appreciation of additional evidence cannot be allowed if the appellant has not been diligent in producing the relevant documents before the lower court, subject to exceptions as laid down in CPC. 17. In the matter of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Another, as reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: - "36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limita....