2026 (1) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hether the platform provided under the I&B Code can be utilized for the purpose of taking vengeance for personal grievances. The facts with which the Appellant has approached this Appellate Tribunal, while challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2024, arise from the order passed by the NCLT, Chennai Bench, in IA(IBC)/1242/CHE/2024 in CP No. 1264/IB/2018. It appears that in the proceedings of the Company Petition No. 1264/IB/2018, there were three interlocutory applications which require specific reference for the purpose of dealing with the instant controversy. 2. Chronologically, the three applications that required consideration are as follows: IA No. 1010/2022 was preferred by the Appellant, who appears in person, by filin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cument belonging to the corporate debtor with intent to defraud or deceive any person, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but may extend to one crore rupees, or with both. 4. This application remained pending until another application, being IA No. 1234/2022, was preferred by the Appellant himself, in IA No. 1010/2022, which was filed by invoking Section 60(5)(a) read with Section 60(5)(c) of the I&B Code and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules. The allegation therein was that the erstwhile Liquidator, Mr. S. Palaniappan, as described in the application, was responsible for misconduct. The basis ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. 6. While this application for filing an additional affidavit and for impleading the erstwhile Resolution Professional and the newly appointed Liquidator remained pending, the Appellant filed a third application IA No. 1242/2024. 7. IA No. 1242/2024 was preferred in CP No. 1264/2018, invoking Section 60(5) of the I&B Code read with Section 70(2) of the I&B Code, read with Regulations 2(1)(b)(a), 31, 30, 31A and 32B of the IBBI (Liquidation process) Regulations, 2016, under the same factual backdrop as IA No. 1010/2022 and IA No. 1234/2022. The Appellant, while elaborating on the issues, in the application IA No. 1242/2024, prayed for a direction against the Respondents in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e I&B Code was pending consideration in IA No. 1010/2022. 9. The argument of the Appellant is that, under the garb of deciding IA No. 1242/2024 - which was solely for procurement of minutes of the meeting and acceptance of the non-disclosure agreement - the Tribunal treated it as a reason for deciding IA No. 1010/CHE/2022, on the ground that in IA No. 1234/2022, which had been filed to implead the erstwhile RP as R2 and the new Liquidator as R3 in IA No. 1010/2022, a reply had been called for. 10. The grievance of the Appellant is that no effective order has been passed on IA No. 1010/CHE/2022, where he prayed for punishing the Respondents under Section 71 of the I&B Code for having knowledge of the books yet failing to proceed in acc....