Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 192 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHLiquidation order - recovery of unauthorized transactions effected by the bank after June 14, 2017 - undervalued transactions - HELD THAT:- It is required to be noted that upon an application originally filed by the corporate debtor under section 10 of the IBC, 2016 seeking thereof to initiate the CIRP against itself the same came to be admitted by this Tribunal on June 14, 2017. As per the provisions of the IBC, 2016 once an application under section 7, 9 or 10 of the IBC, 2016 is admitted by the Adjudicating Authority, the moratorium as envisaged under section 14 of the IBC, 2016 irrespective of who had initiated the process will come into effect - it is clear from a combined reading of the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the IBC, 2016 that once the interim resolution professional in relation to the corporate debtor is appointed by this Tribunal the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest with the IRP and further the powers of the board of directors or the partners of the corporate debtor shall stand suspended and will be exercised by the IRP. From the documents filed by the third respondent/Bank of India, it is seen that the said amount of ₹ 79,65,070 was being distributed to about 69 persons for the period from June 30, 2017 to September 28, 2017 at the behest of the first and second respondent herein by way of various bank instruments, viz., cheques/NEFT/RTGS and cash withdrawals. At this juncture, it is to be borne in mind that the avoidance transactions as contem plated under Chapter III of the IBC, 2016 would come into place only in relation to the transactions which happened prior to the commencement of CIRP. However, section 66 of the IBC, which deals with fraudulent trading and wrongful trading which falls under Chapter VI does not make such a distinction - the first and second respondents have also acted in violation of the moratorium as envisaged under section 14 of the IBC, 2016. The first and second respondent have knowingly transferred the sum of ₹ 79,65,090 to the accounts of the creditors, which would amount to fraudulent trading as envisaged under section 66(1) of the IBC, 2016 aided and abetted by the third respondent which they are required to duly account for the corporate debtor, presently under liquidation and hence as such they are liable to make such contribution to the assets of the corporate debtor - first to third respondents are directed to pay to the liquidation estate managed by the applicant, a sum of ₹ 79,65,090 along with interest chargeable at bank rates from the respective date of withdrawals, within a period of 60 days from the date of this order. In relation to the fourth respondent, the IBBI is directed to take suitable action - application disposed off.
|