Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 756 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHICancellation of sale of plot - directing the possession of the said Plant to be handed over to the Resolution Professional - preferential transaction or not - HELD THAT:- Under Section 46 relevant period for avoidable transaction or undervalued transaction is period of one year preceding the Insolvency Commencement date. The transaction in question being of 05th August, 2019 is within the period as contemplated under Section 46 as noted above. Insolvency Commencement date is 19.09.2019 and it was less than one and half month before the said date that this transaction was made by the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority noted the transaction audit report and submissions made by the Appellant. It was noted by the Adjudicating Authority that ‘no objection’ granted by Yes Bank for sale of the property, was at least ₹ 17.86 crore. When the mortgagee Bank has issued conditional NOC for 17.86 crore transaction of the property, at the amount of 11 crore is undervalued transaction and we do not find any error in the decision of the Adjudicating Authority holding the transaction as undervalued transaction. However, handing over the possession by the Directors of the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant before even payment indicates the nature of transaction which transaction was preferential transaction as well as undervalued transaction. Transaction was a transaction to defeat the rights of the creditor of the Corporate Debtor - Direction in the Impugned Order is only to hand over the possession of the plant to the Resolution Professional which is consequential action on account of reversal of the transaction. The Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority thus cannot be said to be beyond Section 45(1). However, when transaction is treated to be void it loses all its legal effect and submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that since application for declaring the transaction void being Application No. 1304 of 2020 pending no direction could have been issued by the Adjudicating Authority as has been issued in the Impugned Order cannot be accepted. Respondent has also brought on record relevant materials to indicate that both Mohd Nasira Begum and Mohd Kamil who claimed to have passed resolution for transferring the plants on 15th April, 2019 were ceased to be directors with effect from 12.09.2018 hence the entire proceedings beginning from decision to transfer of the property was not legally done and preferential transaction and undervalued transaction in favour of the Appellant was only with a intent to defeat the rights of the creditors and no error have been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in allowing the Application filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 43 and 45 of the Code - Appeal dismissed.
|