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 997 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHIFraudulent transaction or not - seeking necessary directions for cancellation of the transaction of sale of Plant and Machinery of Corporate Debtor to Respondent No.3 - HELD THAT:- Section 46(2) empowers the Adjudicating Authority to require an independent expert to assess evidence relating to the value of the transactions. The power under Section 46(2) is enabling power and the expression used “may require” indicates that it is not necessary that for all applications filed under Section 46(1) there has to be mandatory expert appointed by the Adjudicating Authority - we are not persuaded to accept the submissions of the counsel for the Appellant that it was mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to require an independent expert to assess evidence relating to the value of the transactions. Thus, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in accepting the case of the Resolution Professional that transaction was undervalued. The scheme of Section 49 indicates that where the corporate debtor has entered into an undervalued transaction and the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that such transaction was deliberately entered into by such corporate debtor for keeping assets of the corporate debtor beyond the reach of any person who is entitled to make a claim against the corporate debtor or in order to adversely affect the interests of such a person in relation to the claim, the Adjudicating Authority is required to make an order- (i) restoring the position as it existed before such transaction as if the transaction had not been entered into; and (ii) protecting the interests of persons who are victims of such transactions - the provision as contemplated in Section 49(b)(ii) protecting the interests of persons who are victims of such transactions obviously does not relate to the Appellant who was party to the transaction. Appellant cannot in any manner be said to be victim of such transaction. Hence, there is no question of protecting his interests by the Adjudicating Authority in exercise of powers under Section 49(b)(ii). The Appellant was in fact the beneficiary of the undervalued transaction and he cannot claim himself to be victim of the transaction. The Appeal is dismissed.
|