TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited) - Agri-Tech (India) Limited - Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor - Respondent No.2 (Respondent No.2 - Corporate Debtor - Techindia Nirman Limited)^ - Techindia Nirman Limited. Both of them are related party and it is claimed that in collusion with each other they filed for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings. 2. In February, 2025, the Appellant filed an I.A. No. 841 of 2025 under Section 60(5) read with Section 65 before NCLT seeking recall of CIRP order and for a penalty under Section 65 of the Code on several grounds noted hereinafter by us. The relevant reliefs which were sought by the Appellants in I.A. 841 of 2025 are noted as below (@ 255 APB): "i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to recall/set aside/vacate the Order dated 02.01.2025 initiating the CIRP against Respondent No. 2; ii) That this Hon'ble Tribunal stay the implementation of the Order dated 02.01.2025 during the pendency and till the outcome of the present Application iii) That this Hon'ble Tribunal stay the CIRP initiated against Respondent No. 2 vide Order dated 02.01.2025 during the pendency and till the outcome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Techindia Nirman Limited, they have filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code on 17.10.2024 against the Corporate Debtor - Respondent No.2 - Techindia Nirman Limited. In which they claimed a debt of Rs. 86 crores i.e. Rs. 65 Crores along with interest as financial debt on the basis of an agreement dated 11.05.2021. Appellant claims that this is contrary to the audited records which show that there was nil rate of interest for something which was an advanced being operational in nature and which was not a financial debt. Furthermore, there was no agreement on the other hand, in the Section 7 petition, 12% interest was asserted by Corporate Debtor - Respondent No.2 - Techindia Nirman Limited. Basis the agreement and which was a non-existent agreement. Appellant claims that he agreement is backdated by three years. Moreover, the payments were already made and the agreement was without proper stamp duty. Appellant also brings to our notice that filing of Section 7 petition is to be disclosed to the stock exchanges as per Regulation 30(2)6) read with Clause 6 Part A Schedule III of the LODR. 7. On 02.01.2025, CIRP was initiated by NCLT. Appellant claims that the order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not mandatory to prove a financial debt, which can be substantiated by other evidences. Even though, it is considered that the contents of the agreement do not support the accounting entries and statements in the audited financial statements, this aspect may not have much relevance if the amount claimed in default is acknowledged as financial debt in the audited financial statement. The contention that the financial statements acknowledge such advance having been taken for "operational purpose" does not disqualify it to be held as financial debt, as (i) the working capital finance is also disbursed by lenders for operational purposes, and (ii) an advance can qualify as financial debt under the Code if there is disbursement of such advance for time value of money. The decision in case of Apnaghar Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is distinguishable as the issue therein was whether this Tribunal or Hon'ble NCLAT has jurisdiction to enquire into allegations of fraud." 8. Appellant also brings to our notice that the rejection of the resolution by shareholder at the AGM including related party transactions were not mentioned in the CIRP order. 9. Appellant also brings to our notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company was used as a financial loan and by preparing an agreement on 100 rupees stamp paper filed Section 7 application as if it is a financial debt. Submissions of Respondent No. 1-FC 12. The Respondent No.1 claims that its claim in respect of the Financial Claim stands firmly established on the following incontrovertible pillars: a) Existence of a valid loan agreement: A duly executed Loan Agreement entered into between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, in terms whereof the financial assistance was advanced and the clause of levying the interest @ 12% p.a. on compounding basis, calculated monthly, from the date of disbursement of the loan till the final settlement date, [Pg. 134 APB]. The said agreement was executed with free consent and in sound disposing mind. b) Respondent No. 1 had duly complied with the mandate of Sec. 186 of Companies Act, in terms of passing Resolution on 30th June 2020, [Pg. 145 & Pg. 146 APB] and the relevant compliances in terms of Form MGT - 14 [@142-144 APB]. c) The Loan Transaction(s) and the consequent default is groundless since above-mentioned features in the Financial Statements of Respondent No. 1, reflectin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am plea, bereft of merit, unsupported by proof, and contrary to the very scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which is a creditor-driven mechanism prioritizing the legitimate rights of creditors. Hence, the Appellant's contention deserves to be rejected at the threshold with the contempt it warrants. 17. The contention of the Appellant that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are related parties and that this Adjudicating Authority was unaware of such fact is wholly misconceived and misleading. It is ex-facie that the records demonstrate that the NCLT was very well aware that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 had common persons and were therefore related entities within the meaning of Section 5(24) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 18. In fact, it was the Appellant who had earlier filed an Interlocutory Application under Section 60(5) of the Code expressly alleging that the impugned transactions were sham, bogus and fraudulent and the admission of the CIRP itself should be quashed, and in doing so, the Appellant himself reconfirmed the fact of the parties being related. The NCLT, having duly considered the said application, found no credibility or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... frivolous exercise, a self-contradictory pleading filed with the sole object of wasting the precious time of this Hon'ble Tribunal, and deserves to be dismissed with the contempt it warrants. 21. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant, in para 7.25 of the appeal, has mischievously and selectively quoted the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, thereby attempting to create an impression wholly contrary to the record. The Learned Bench had observed that "there may be substance in the contentions made by the Appellant", a conditional remark, not an affirmation that there is substance. Further, the very same order clarified in unequivocal terms that if the promoters desire to regain control of the Corporate Debtor, their ability to do so is strictly circumscribed under the Code, and they would have to meet the eligibility requirements laid down therein. Thus, far from supporting the Appellant, the order only reiterates the statutory position under the IBC. The Appellant's act of cherry-picking a phrase while omitting the qualifying context amounts to a deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to misguide this Hon'ble Tribunal, and such conduct deserves to be de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y represent; they are not permitted under law to act on personal whims but are bound to safeguard the interests of the company and its stakeholders. In the present case, the shareholders' interest of Respondent No.1 necessitated the filing of an application under Section 7 of the IBC against Respondent No.2, which was duly done. No resolution was ever passed to file a petition under Section 10, nor was such a course required. Most importantly, there is no statutory bar under the Code prohibiting a related party from invoking Section 7 to recover a legitimate financial debt. Hence, the Appellant's submission is not only contrary to the settled legal framework but also a futile attempt to cloud the clear position that Respondent No.1, as a financial creditor, is fully entitled to maintain proceedings under Section 7 against Respondent No.2. 25. It is respectfully submitted that the loan advanced by the Financial Creditor under the Loan Agreement, though utilized for operational requirements of the Corporate Debtor, constitutes a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as it was a disbursal against consideration for the time va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Form A was published on 8th January, 2025 in two different newspapers, one being The Free Press Journal in English and another in Mumbai Nav Shakti in Marathi. After the verification of the claims from the creditors, Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted of four unsecured financial creditors. The names of the CoC members are herein given below for clarity: Sr. No Details of Creditors Type of Creditors % of voting rights in CОС 1. Gemang Multitrade Private Limited Unsecured Financial Creditor 37.77% 2. Jeen Bhavani Metals Unsecured Financial Creditor 20.79% 3. Paharimata Commodities Private Limited Unsecured Financial Creditor 20.76% 4. Maa Pahari Mercentiles Private Limited Unsecured Financial Creditor 20.68% 29. The AGRITECH INDIA LIMITED has filed the claim with the IRP as per the CIRP admission order along with the documents in FORM C as the financial creditor and had disclosed in the claim that it is a related party to the CD. Accordingly, the claim was admitted but the AGRITECH INDIA LIMITED is not included in the CoC and theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 9th COC Meeting 20/06/2025 32. The RP has duly made the INFORMATION MEMORANDUM ("IM") and the REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION PLAN ("RFRP") and the same was duly made available to the PRAs in the matter. After due consideration of all the resolution plans submitted by all the PRAs and after giving them an opportunity to revise the plans submitted the Consortium of Varad Ferro-Alloys Private Limited, Varad Crop Science Private Limited and Yogesh Madhani Solutions (OPC) Private Limited, the PRA was taken for final consideration and approved in the 9th CoC meeting held on 20.06.2025. All the CoC members reconfirmed approval of Resolution Plan by sending e-mails on 21.06.2025. The RP has already filed the Application u/s 30(6) before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan bearing IA (IBC) (Plan)/75 (MB)/2025, which is pending for adjudication before the NCLT/AA. The RP/ Respondent No. 3 as under his duties under the provisions of the Code being the RP of the Corporate Debtor had appointed Mr. Rupesh Pachori (FRN: 024651C), Chartered Accountant, as Transaction Auditor to conduct the transaction audit / forensic audit to identify any transaction falling within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is maintainable or not? o Whether the initiation of CIRP has been done fraudulently or not. 35. The Appellants herein namely Balkishan Shrikisan Baldawa had filed an IA No. 841 of 2025 in C.P (IB) No. 787/MB/2024 before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) read with Section 65 of Code wherein they highlight fraud perpetrated by Respondent No.1 - Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor - Respondent No.2. Both of them are admittedly related parties and it is brought to our notice that, in collusion with each other, Financial Creditor filed for initiation of insolvency proceedings and it was not resisted by Corporate Debtor. The Appellant has sought to recall the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor - Respondent No.2 - Techindia Nirman Limited and further requesting for imposing a penalty on the Respondents under Section 65 of the Code for fraudulent initiation of CIRP. Maintainability of the Appeal 36. Respondent No.1 - Financial Creditor questions the maintainability of the appeal. Questioning the maintainability, the Respondent-FC brings to our notice para 8 of the daily order sheet o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Securities Appellate Tribunal under the SEBI Act, 1992 or not. In the above cited case, the Tribunal had already passed an interim order on 20.09.2004 and the issue as to the maintainability was raised by the appellant before the Securities Appellate Tribunal and noted on 22.11.2004. 37. But in the case in hand, this AT had heard the matter in detail on 02.09.2025 and basis that interim directions were issued. So, the present case is distinguishable and the above judgment of SEBI is of no assistance to the respondent No.1. In any case, the issues relating to the objections regarding the locus of the Appellant have been taken up by us hereinafter separately. 38. Furthermore, while challenging the locus of the Appellant, Respondent No.1 places its reliance on this Appellate Tribunal in Park Energy Private Limited (supra) wherein it was held that a shareholder cannot be an aggrieved person. Relevant part of the judgement is extracted below: "... 18. Once again, the answer to the conclusion given by BYJU Raveendran Judgment (supra) as contained in para 75, would be similar to the one which has already been answered by us in the preceding paragraphs. The Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority and claimed fraudulent initiation of CIRP, which was dismissed by the AA and now there is appeal before us against that order. The Appellant is claiming collusion between the Respondent - Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor. Thus, the above judgment will not be of any help to the Respondent. 40. Respondent No 1 also placed reliance upon a similar judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Appellate Tribunal. In (Comp.) (App.) (AT) (Ins) No. 1393 of 2023 titled Peninsula Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. JM Financial Credit Solutions Limited & Anr. (2025) ibclaw.in 887 NCLAT, where this tribunal held: "36. The issue of whether a shareholder can maintain an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC has been conclusively settled by a three-member Bench of this Appellate Tribunal in 'Park Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1289)'. The larger Bench examined conflicting earlier judgments and laid down a uniform principle that the proceedings at the behest of a shareholder, being merely an investor with profit interest, but without administrative control or direct legal injury, are not maintainable under the IBC. The term 'person aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Section 62 IBC and Section 53-T of the Competition Act must be understood widely and not in a restricted fashion. 25. In the present case, the appellant as an unsuccessful resolution applicant whose resolution plan could have otherwise been approved by CoC, satisfies the requirement of being aggrieved. This preliminary locus standi objection vis- à-vis the appellant, therefore, does not merit acceptance." [Emphasis supplied] 42. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted any aggrieved person to be not in a restricted manner but widely as it says that "the term "any person aggrieved" appearing in Section 62 IBC and Section 53-T of the Competition Act must be understood widely and not in a restricted fashion." Countering the above arguments, the Respondent brings to our notice para 197 of the same judgement [Independent Sugar Corporation Limited (supra)] and contends that the meaning of aggrieved person should harmonise with the object of the Code. The para is extracted below: "42. In a few cases, the Courts have declined to be bound by the letter when the letter frustrates the patent purposes of the statute. The learned J.C. Shah, J. in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Limited (supra) pronounced on 29.01.2025, wherein in the context of the use of the term "aggrieved party" in the Code, has been held that CIRP is a proceeding in rem and "any person aggrieved" must be understood widely. (c) Therefore, Park Energy Private Limited (supra) will not apply to the present facts and circumstances where the application by a related party creditor has been disguised under Section 7 of the Code to circumvent the requirement of approval of the shareholders contemplated under Section 10 of the Code, as has been noted by us separately hereinafter. (d) There is strong argument that the present transaction is a collusive transaction between the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor, and the only person aggrieved are the public shareholder like the Appellant. 46. We have noted the contentions of both sides and find that the arguments presented by Respondent do not come in the way of the Appellant to be considered as an aggrieved person. The Code doesn't bar the Appellant to file an appeal. Section 61 of the Code clearly states that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013, "any person aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding of the instant Respondent No.1 is bound to be wiped out in a similar manner as that of appellant, and it defies rationale as to how someone commits fraud without deriving any benefit out of it; since the Appellant & Respondent No.1 are on the same footing in terms of the shareholding vis-à-vis the CIRP of Respondent No.2/CD. Thus, the appellant cannot carve out an exception for himself in the entire IBC mechanism which is being attempted by the appellant in the instant appeal, without establishing/ proving any purported fraud. 49. To find out whether the insolvency has been initiated for fraudulent purposes or not, we go into the background of the initiation insolvency in this case. We note that the Appellant, Balkishan Shrikishan Baldawa, is the shareholder in both Respondent No.1, Agri-Tech (India) Limited (Financial Creditor), and Respondent No.2, Techindia Nirman Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Appellant holds 63059 Equity Shares in the Respondent No. 1 and 163064 Equity Shares in Respondent No. 2. The Appellant is also supported by other shareholders who executed a power of attorney in his favour, and the Appellant and the other shareholders hold 342880 Equity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant claims that the order of the Adjudicating Authority does not reflect that the issue of related parties was considered or placed before the Bench by the Financial Creditor - Respondent No.1 - Agri-Tech (India) Limited. Appellant also brings to our notice that the same management proposes a settlement and then rejects it. This is noted in the Impugned order dated 25.04.2025 at para 9 &10: "... 9. Undisputedly, there is challenge to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to pass an Order in C.P. (IB) 787/2024. Further, the Code does not contemplate issuance of any notice to any stakeholder in a Petition u/s 7 of the Code while adjudicating the initiation of CIRP proceedings except the Corporate Debtor itself. The Applicant's prayer for recall is premised on the ground that the Order dated 02.1.2025 was obtained by suppressing that (a) the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are managed by same set of persons controlling the majority of Board of Directors of both the companies; (b) the loan agreement placed before this Bench is a sham agreement to prove existence of financial debt while in fact loan was taken for operational purposes; (c) the Petition was filed to ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Creditor had advanced a loan of Rs. 65 crores to Corporate Debtor (Respondent No.2) vide loan agreement dated 11.05.2021 and default was committed on 01.04.2024. The said liability is admitted by Corporate Debtor, which is a related party of the Respondent No.1 - Financial Creditor and the proposal to settle is refused by Financial Creditor. NCLT admitted the Corporate Debtor into insolvency vide order dated 02.01.2025. It appears that no opposition was made by Respondent No.2 and there was no genuine attempt to settle. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that admission of insolvency has been done in a very mechanical manner. It is not noted in the impugned order that the two entities namely Respondent No.1 and 2 are managed, owned and governed by the same management and they are related parties, which though not barred yet would require deeper scrutiny. The Board of Directors of the two companies is also more or less identical and they have common members of Audit Committee. The fact that the said companies are related is not even disputed. All these facts would have a bearing on the insolvency initiation. 52. We observe that the CIRP initiation order dated 02.01.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23(3)(e) of LODR. h) No disclosure of filing of Section 7 Application under Regulation 30(2) & (6) r/w Clause 6, Part A. Schedule III, LODR" 54. The Appellant had filed the recall application before the NCLT to bring to its notice that the Respondent No.1 and 3 are admittedly related parties and CIRP has been initiated collusively and it is a case of a fraudulent initiation of CIRP. It had also sought relief under Section 65 of the Code. 55. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 25.04.2025 dismissed the above mentioned IA. While passing its order, the Adjudicating Authority made following observations in the impugned order, which are noted as below: "12. The Applicant has also alleged that the Petition u/s 7 of the Code was fall out of all resolution seeking adoption of annual financial statements for the year ended on 31.3.2024, appointment of three directors from Kagliwal Family (relatives of director in control of both the companies), and material related party transaction were rejected by 66.77% vote by the shareholders and this fact of rejection of these resolution was suppressed from this Tribunal, which otherwise, could have been material fact f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt No.2. It also appears from the order dated 02.01.2025 that the fact of the parties being related was not brought to the notice of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The above-stated facts also reveal a clear design by Respondent Companies (who have common management) to evade the requirement under Section 10 of the Code to seek approval of shareholders for voluntary insolvency resolution, and instead misuse the provisions of Section 7 of the Code to set at naught the shareholding of public shareholders. 57. Strongly refuting the arguments of the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 argues that to allege fraud, the Appellant relies solely on the statement of auditor in the Financials that there was no loan agreement. To rely solely on the statement of auditor in Financials to alleged fraud conflicts the authoritative pronouncement of law made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. v. Antrix Corpn. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 46 - Para 126, wherein it was categorically stated that - "...The auditor's report can neither be taken as gospel truth nor act as estoppel against the company. The statement in the auditor's report, is as per the information given to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention that the Company Petition was filed to wipe out public shareholding. 60. We also note that after annual general meetings [19.09.2024 and 25.09.2024] of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No.1 rejected resolutions inter alia in respect of appointment of directors from Kagliwal family (promoters) and approval of material related party transactions immediately thereafter, on 17.10.2024, the Respondent No.1 (which is related party of Respondent No.2), filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code against the Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 claims that copy of resolution considered in AGM of September 2024 wherein the related party transactions are rejected by the shareholders is not produced by the Appellant. But Respondent No.1 has produced one resolution which is part of the Notice of the AGM for 19th Sept 2024. We've gone through the resolution which is part of the AGM notice produced by the Respondent No.1 and we find that it is a very generic resolution for related transactions aggregating up to an amount not exceeding Rs. 250 Crs for the financial year. We note there is no specific bifurcation of related party transactions to individual entities to which the loan is being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions the Respondent Companies, with common management, resorted to Section 7 of the Code in an attempt to wipe out the shareholding (including public shareholding). 64. Furthermore, it is brought to our notice by the Appellant that fraud is being committed even during the CIRP. It is brought to our notice that while Respondent No. 3 (RP) has asserted that the liquidation value as Rs. 10 Crores, however, he has failed to mention that there are Applications pending before the Adjudicating Authority to indicate while assessing the liquidation value, vital assets of the Respondent No.2 / Corporate Debtor have been omitted. For instance, including a parcel of land located at Itkheda, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, admeasuring approximately 8.65 acres, which alone appears to be worth significantly more than the liquidation value of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- indicated by the Respondent No.3, as a neighbouring parcel of land in the vicinity was sold in June 2025 at a rate of more than Rs. 17,00,00,000/- per acre (i.e. a total of approximately Rs. 150 Crore), based on a perusal of public records by the Appellant. The said Application and repeated orders passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority callin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Statutory Auditor's reports for FY 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 indicate that loans issued by Respondent No.1 do not carry an interest component and no interest payment schedule has been provided. [Auditor's Report @ para 3b, pg. 147, APB]. Further Annual Report of the Financial Creditor indicates that the alleged loan and advances were given without any written agreement [extracted at pg. 246, Ann. A/17, Vol.1]. The arguments presented by Respondent No. 1 do not appear to be convincing and are therefore rejected. 67. Even Adjudicating Authority inter alia records in the Impugned Order dt. 25.04.2025 that contents of the alleged Agreement do not support accounting entries and statements of audited financial statements [pg. 85, APB]. Furthermore, Adjudicating Authority treats "operational in nature" as "operational purpose" and holds that interest free loan also constitute financial debt. We observe that the AA has passed the order basis incorrect details provided by Respondent Companies. We observe that Adjudicating Authority ought to have looked into the facts and circumstances holistically that related parties have sought initiation of CIRP by providing incorrect details in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Pvt. Ltd. (2024) SCC Online NCLAT 1384. Civil Appeal Diary No. 4152 of 2025 is pending, where notice was issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025. 71. In M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited (supra) it was held that "35. ...The filing of the Section 7 Petition by these individuals, while being Directors of the Financial Creditor, was not intended to seek a genuine resolution for the CD but rather to harm its interests, thereby demonstrating malicious intent. The Appellant is a related party to the CD, with common Directors during the relevant period when the alleged debt and default occurred. We find merit in the argument that the Mittal family members, who controlled both entities at the time, orchestrated the Loan Arrangement, making the claim self-serving and legally untenable. The Appellant and its related entities were actively involved in the management of the CD during the transactions in question, reinforcing the case for malice." 36. Thus, we find strength in the arguments of Respondent No. 1- SBI that the Appellant's Section 7 Petition was filed with ulterior motives. Consequently, we see no infirmity in the findings of the AA, as they are ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of the claim, the Appellant has also filed the present appeal because the Appellant is aggrieved against the admission of the application under Section 7 of the Code which is according to it an act of collusion to defraud the appellant and other creditors. 38. ...This amount has been assigned by way of an agreement dated 10.02.2020 on the basis of which the application under Section 7 has been filed, however, Respondent No. 3 who happened to be a director and shareholder in all three companies, namely, Navayuga, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. In Navyuga he is director and 21.77% shareholder, in Respondent No. 1 he was a Promotor and director till 2015 and 33.34 % shareholder and in Respondent No. 2 he is a director & 66.66% shareholder which shows that this case shall come within Section 5(24) (m)(i) and (iii) of the Code as Respondent No. 3 is controlling more than 20% of the voting share of these companies and also the assignor... 42. In view thereof, we have no doubt in our mind that the petition filed by Respondent No. 2 against Respondent No. 1 was collusive and for a purpose other than for the resolution of insolvency and hence the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nging the constitution of the CoC which is pending in NCLT. Appellant brings to our notice the constitution of the CoC, which is as follows: S. No. Name of creditor Amount of claim admitted Voting percentage 1. Gemag Multitrade Private Limited 1,87,57,479.45 37.77% 2. Jeen Bhavani Metals Private Limited 1,03,22,191.78 20.79% 3. Paharimata Commodities Private Limited 1,03,09,041.10 20.76% 4. Maa Pahari Mercantiles Private Limited 1,02,69,589.04 20.68% Total 4,96,58,301.37 100% 77. Appellant also brings to our notice that large number of assets of the Corporate Debtor - Respondent No.2 - Techindia Nirman Limited, with high value, have not been included in the CIR proceedings and an IA is pending in NCLT, where despite multiple opportunities, no reply has been filed by the resolution professional. In the meantime, CoC has approved the resolution plan for Rs. 25 cores with roughly Rs. 18 crores provided only for Financial Creditor - Respondent No.1 - Agri-Tech (India) Limited against debt of Rs. 86 crores. This implies that a promoter group initiated CIRP against its own company and by related company, FC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sufficient material exists on record. We don't find anything beyond the pleadings. We therefore do not find the arguments of the Respondent No1 to be convincing and we reject these arguments of the Respondent. Conclusion: 80. In the facts and circumstances, when Appellant has made out a case for fraudulent initiation of CIR proceedings and both the FC and the CD are related parties, we unhesitatingly conclude that Appellants are aggrieved person and have the locus to file the Appeal and the Appeal is maintainable. We also conclude that FC and CD being related parties have collusively filed the Section 7 application and got CD admitted into CIR Proceedings and this is case of a fraudulent initiation of CIR proceedings. We also conclude that the filing of Section 7 in this case is not for resolution of the Corporate Debtor but for some other purpose. Had the purpose been the resolution of the CD, the offer of settlement of Corporate Debtor could have been accepted by FC, especially when both have the same management. CD could have explored Section 10 route under the code. This is a sure way of wiping out major shareholding. We also notice pending transaction audit and PUFE app....