Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency & Bankruptcy Insolvency & Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency & Bankruptcy - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
2023 (1) TMI 304 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Initiation of CIRP - Financial Creditors - whether notices sent in Section 7 Application to the Corporate Debtor were duly served or not? - HELD THAT:- In Section 7 Application, which has been filed by the Financial Creditor, the notices which were sent to the Corporate Debtor were at the email address registered as shown in Company Master Data obtained on 26.10.2021. The fact that subsequently the Corporate Debtor got its email address changed in the Company Master Data is reflected in Company Master Data obtained on 09.03.2022, cannot be a ground to be pressed by the Corporate Debtor that notices were not sent at the registered email address of the Corporate Debtor - The Financial Creditor has also filed an affidavit of service dated 15.12.2021 before the Adjudicating Authority where details of service of notices were mentioned. The Adjudicating Authority being fully satisfied by the affidavit of service and materials brought on record has held that notices were served.
The letter produced itself clearly indicates that Rajendra Kumar was a staff of 3 C Company and he requested that he should be removed from the post of Director from all the Companies of 3 C Group. The letter sent by Rajendra Kumar has been brought on record by the Appellant himself, which indicates that Rajendra Kumar was Director in All Companies of 3 C Group, hence, the signature of Rajendra Kumar on the loan Agreement is clearly explained as he was made Director in all Companies of 3 C by the Appellant and other Promoters.
Coming to the RTI reply, which has been filed by the Appellant, suffice it to say that RTI reply cannot be a basis for disregarding the loan Agreement dated 31.05.2018. Admittedly, the RTI reply was obtained at the instance of the Appellant on 03.09.2022, which was a document procured by the Appellant for the purposes of the case. More so, the amount transferred in the Bank account of the Appellant was in pursuance to the loan Agreement. There is no denial of transfer of the amount by Bank transfer in the account of the Corporate Debtor. When disbursement of the loan is not even denied, the cry of the Appellant that loan Agreement was forged, has no weight. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has also relied on record of Financial Information in Form C in support of establishing default.
There were sufficient materials before the Adjudicating Authority to accept the debt and default and no error hasbeen committed in admitting Section 7 Application - Appeal dismissed.