TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Income Tax return for the Assessment Year 2018-19 filed by Tejinder Singh Kocher on behalf of M/s Prabh Films (attached at page 136 of the Appeal) include the name of Bhupinder Singh Mann as a partner of Prabh Films (pg. 139 of the Appeal). It is filed on 13.8.2018, much after 31.10.2017, the alleged date of retirement as claimed by Respondent No. 3. Similarly, the Income Tax return for the Assessment Year 2019-20 filed on behalf of M/s. Prabh Films by Tejinder Singh Kocher on 29.8.2019 includes the name of Bhupinder Singh Mann as a partner (attached at pages 192-193 of the Appeal). Tejinder Singh Kocher (Respondent No. 2) and Bhupinder Singh Mann (Respondent No. 3) were connected parties as per Section 29A of IBC at the time the Resolution Plan was submitted by the Respondent No. 2. This leads to the obvious and inevitable conclusion that Tejinder Singh Kocher was not eligible to submit the Resolution Plan and hence the Resolution Plan so submitted and approved by the Adjudicating Authority was bad in law. The Resolution Plan is rejected as it was submitted by a person hit by Section 29A of IBC. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 573 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 1-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sociates, which @ ₹ 10/- per share amounts to 7.05% of the total shareholding, and therefore he is an interested party in the resolution of the Corporate Debtor. He has stated that the CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor as a result of admission of Section 7 application under IBC, filed by Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 4) as Financial Creditor vide order dated 15.2.2018 of NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, and Manoj Sehgal was appointed as Internal Resolution Professional, who has subsequently been confirmed as Resolution Professional. 5. It has been claimed by Respondent No. 2 that Respondent No. 3 retired as Director from the aforementioned two firms, M/s Prabh Films and M/s Prabh International, vide two retirement deeds w.e.f. 31.10.2017. These retirement deeds were presented to the Resolution Professional (Respondent No.1) who on finding Respondent No.2 as eligible to file Resolution Plan submitted these retirement deeds before the Adjudicating Authority in CA No. 852 of 2019. 6. Upon invitation of Expressions of Interest, Respondent No. 2 submitted a Resolution Plan jointly with two other persons, which was taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating Authority vide order dated 25.2.2020 in CA No.850/2019 and CA No. 852/2019 relied on the retirement deeds submitted by Respondent No. 3 and signed by the continuing partner (Respondent No. 2) and retiring partner (Respondent No. 3) to dismiss the CA No. 850/2019. This was despite the fact that GST and Income Tax returns which were extracted from public portals and filed by the Applicant Navneet Jain were public documents and their authenticity was not disputed by the Respondent No.2. 9. The Appellant, thereafter, preferred appeal CA No.1168/2019 before this Tribunal, which was disposed off vide order dated 13.12.2019, whereby the Adjudicating Authority was directed to look into all documents submitted by the Appellant regarding ineligibility of Respondent No. 2 as Resolution Applicant and take decision in CA No. 354/2018 while considering the Resolution Plan for final approval. Consequent to this order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority again had an opportunity to look at the eligibility of Respondent No. 2 under Section 29A vis-a-vis the two retirement deeds and the GST and Income Tax returns. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 8.6.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of execution of the two retirement deeds. These are given in the table below:- S. No. Firm Name Partnership Deed executed on Date of retirement as per Retirement Deed Date of execution of Retirement Deed 1. Prabh Films 25/05/2017 31/10/2017 01/11/2017 2. Prabh International 03/10/2016 31/10/2017 01/11/2017 He has also pointed out the following relevant dates:- (i) Resolution Plan submitted to Resolution Professional: 06.06.2018. (ii) Resolution Plan approved by COC: 14.08.2018. (iii) Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority: 08.06.2020. 15. On the basis of the dates given above, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has claimed that, as per the two retirement deeds, Respondent No. 3 had retired as partner in the two firms w.e.f. 31.10.2017. Hence, Respondent No. 2 was not a related party to Respondent No.3 on the date he submitted the Resolution Plan to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 directing the Adjudicating Authority to look into the documents filed before the Adjudicating Authority regarding eligibility when considering the Resolution Plan for final approval in CA No. 354/2018. The Resolution Plan was approved vide order dated 8.6.2020 of the Adjudicating Authority in CA 354/2018. The eligibility of Tejinder Singh Kochar as Resolution Applicant was looked into and a final order was passed approving the Resolution Plan. 21. We find surprising that the Resolution Professional while filing CA No. 852/2019 did not give credence to the GST and Income Tax Returns and later the Adjudicating Authority vide order 25.2.2019 in 850/2019 chose to rely on private documents i.e. two retirement deeds, whose authenticity had been disputed by the Appellant and dismiss the said Application No. 850/2019. The applicant approached the NCLAT in appeal against this order but was not granted leave. Hence he could not file appeal. In the meanwhile, final order in CA No. 354/2018 dated 8.6.2020 came to be passed approving the Resolution Plan. 22. We accept the claim of the Appellant that the order of Adjudicating Authority in CA No. 850/2019 and 852/2019 could not be forma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilarly, the Income Tax return for the Assessment Year 2019-20 filed on behalf of M/s. Prabh Films by Tejinder Singh Kocher on 29.8.2019 includes the name of Bhupinder Singh Mann as a partner (attached at pages 192-193 of the Appeal). 26. Further in the Income Tax return of M/s. Prabh International (the second firm) for Assessment Year 2018-19 filed by Tejinder Singh Kocher on 17.8.2018, Bhupinder Singh Mann is shown as a partner (attached at pages 249-294 of the Appeal). Also, in the Income Tax return for the Assessment Year 2019-20 filed on 20.09.2019, on behalf of Prabh International by Tejinder Singh Kocher (attached pages 295-352 of the appeal), Bhupinder Singh Mann is shown as a partner. 27. Looking at the GST Returns, we find that in the GST Returns filed on 24.6.2019 (attached on page 62 of the Appeal) of M/s. Prabh Films, Bhupinder Singh Mann is shown as a partner. Furthermore, in the GST Return for M/s. Prabh International filed on 26.6.2019 (attached at page 75 of the appeal) Bhupinder Singh Mann has been shown as a partner. 28. The retirement deeds show the date of retirement of Respondent No. 3 from the two firms w.e.f 31.10.2017. Even if we presume that on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
