Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 924 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHIInitiation of CIRP - Application filed by the Appellants/Applicants rejected on the ground that the Appellants were ‘Related Parties’ and cannot be treated as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of Section 5(7) of the Code - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that the Appellants together hold about 48% of the shareholding of the Company. It is the main contention of the Appellants that the Master Data of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ was not updated in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ‘MCA’ Website and that they were never Directors of the Company and were only Additional Directors, which designation, also ceased as the Annual General Meeting contemplated under Section 161(1) of the Act was never conducted inducting them as Directors. A brief perusal of the Master Data of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ reflects the fact that Appellants 2 & 3 continue to be Directors. It is also seen that the second Appellant Mr. Sushil Govindrao Uttarwar is the common Director of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as well as the present Appellant No. 1 Company. Further in the Application filed by the Appellants herein seeking intervention in the Section 7 Petition filed by SIDBI, it is submitted that they have acquired 44% shareholding of the ‘Corporate Debtor Company’ in November 2018 and arrayed themselves as ‘Directors’. It is significant to mention that a copy of the Master Data of the ‘Corporate Debtor Company’ as per the records of the MCA Website was annexed to the said Application, in support of their ‘locus standi’ for intervening in the matter. Therefore, the contention of the Appellants herein that they were not Directors of the ‘Corporate Debtor Company’, is untenable. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the documentary evidence on record clearly establishes that the entire loan was converted into equity and hence no claim is maintainable under the guise that this amount be treated as a ‘Financial Debt’ - this Tribunal holds that the Appellants are ‘Related Parties’ and there are no substantial grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned Order of the Adjudicating Authority - Appeal dismissed.
|