Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 234 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCIRP - Preferential Transactions or not - related transaction or not - Transaction within look bak period - such transactions are carried with intent to defraud creditors or not - Section 25(2)(J), 43, 45, 66 and Section 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, except Respondent No. 6 and the respondent no. 6 in its reply has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Anuj Jain Vs. Axis Bank Limited [2020 (2) TMI 1259 - SUPREME COURT] in which it was held that "the transactions deemed to be preferential can be excluded if they are considered to be done in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the corporate debtor." The respondent No. 6 has placed on record copies of Purchase Orders, Statement of bank accounts and ledger accounts to show that the alleged transactions were done during the ordinary course of business. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent no. 6 is a related party to the corporate debtor. Therefore, since there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent no. 6 is a related party then the relevant time period would be one year prior to commencement of CIRP and thus, the alleged transactions are outside the purview of Section 43 of the Code in respect to the Respondent No. 6. On going through the each and every transaction submitted by the Resolution Professional, and after elaborate examination it is seen that the impugned transactions are preferential transactions, except in respect of respondent no. 6 as defined in the sub-section 2(a) of Section 43 of the IBC as these transactions have been executed within the look back period of two years before the commencement of Insolvency proceeding and are therefore covered under section 43(4)(a). Further the transaction mentioned in para 6 above are therefore held to be undervalued transactions in terms of Section 45 of the Code and Transaction as explained in para 7 are held to be fraudulent transactions as defined under Section 66 of the Code. The Respondents, except respondent no. 6, are hereby directed to pay the amounts as explained in para 5, 6 and 7 to the corporate debtor within 30 days from the date of the pronouncement of this order - appliaction allowed.
|