TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough its Stressed Asset Management Branch, puts a challenge to the Impugned Order dated 18.10.2023, that was passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority of the NCLT Hyderabad Bench-I in IA No. 1100/2022 as preferred in CP (IB) No. 275/9/HDB/2021, by which the application that was preferred by the Liquidator under Section 66 of I & B Code, 2016, was rejected. 2. The brief facts are that the Resolution Professional had preferred the IA being IA No. 1100/2022, before the learned Adjudicating Authority, wherein the Liquidator has prayed for that, the Respondents therein, that is, the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor, may be directed to contribute to the assets of the Corporate Debtor, for an amount of Rs. 9,74,14,192/- for makin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01.2017, without any information as the Respondents did not produce books of accounts. It was declared as a fraud account by FC/SBI and complaint was registered with CBI on 16.07.2022. 4. On appointment as Resolution Professional, the Resolution Professional, Respondent-1 (herein) tried to elicit the required information in connection with the said report, but he also got no co-operation from the Suspended Board of Directors. Finally with the available information the Resolution Professional/Liquidator filed the Application IA No. 1100/2022 before the learned Adjudicating Authority. 5. According to the application that was preferred by the Resolution Professional, a total amount of Rs. 9,74,14,192/- was alleged to be transferred to va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Authority may deem fit." 7. The said application preferred by Resolution Professional was taken up for consideration by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide Impugned Order dated 18.10.2023, rejected the said Application, that is, IA No.1100/2022, on the ground that, whatsoever the fraudulent transactions that, have been referred to and complained of by the Appellant/Applicant in his application i.e., IA No. 1100/2022, pertaining to the transactions that were carried between the period from 13.12.2016 to 23.01.2017, based upon the findings of the Forensic Audit Report which itself was not final. Further, the learned Tribunal while considering the implication of Section 66 of the I & B Code, 2016, to be read wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppened with respected bank authorities, we are agreeing to submit the supplementary audit report based on the additional information provided by the Borrower. However, we didn't receive any information from the borrower and request you to consider the final report dated 24.06.2022, submitted by us as a final report and we are here by reproduced the major points mentioned in the final forensic audit reports as follows: 1) The Borrower is non-cooperative for conducting the audit and not submitted the required information. 2) Payments of Rs. 9,74,14,1921/- made by the company to various Persons/ Firms/ Companies during the period 13.12.2016 to 23.07.2017 and the same were appearing to be suspicious. 3) Due to non-sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. 10. We are in an disagreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant that, the order is not based upon a sound reasoning, for the reason being that if the application under Section 66 of the I & B Code, 2016, is being attempted to be considered exclusively based upon the Forensic Auditor's Report, the same has to be established on its own merit and its genuineness on the strength of supporting documents and evidence which has not been produced to be by the Tribunal. 11. In the absence of such supporting documents and evidence, we are of the view that, the Forensic Auditors Report alone, in its present shape, cannot be extracted to be applied for the purposes ....