TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Bijay Singh ; This Appeal has been preferred by PJ Networks Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Mr. Sanjay Seth aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench-IV in IA No. 5364/(ND)/2020 in Company Petition No. (IB)/2695/(ND)/2019 whereby and where under the Application filed by Mr. Pardeep Kumar Lakhani, Resolution Professional of M/s. Dion Global Solutions Ltd. (Respondent herein) was allowed with directions the Respondent No. 1 to 5 herein to refund all payments received by them on 19.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 respectively details of the order as hereunder: a) Respondent No. 1 to refund an amount of ₹ 1,26,522/- in the account of corporate debtor under the control of the applicant/RP. b) Respondent No. 2 to refund an amount of ₹ 89,694/- in the account of corporate debtor under the control of the applicant/RP. c) Respondent No. 3 to refund an amount of ₹ 4,08,290/- in the account of corporate debtor under the control of the applicant/RP. d) Respondent No. 4 to refund an amount of ₹ 1,578/- in the account of corporate debtor und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 11,63,683/- in the Bank Account bearing No. 00030340025085 in HDFC Bank, Sector 125 Noida Branch; iii) The Respondent herein took over the affairs of the Corporate Debtor in terms of Section 17 of the IBC and CIRP Regulations on 27.08.2020. In the 1st CoC meeting the Respondent herein was confirmed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. iv) Further, the Respondent herein perused the Bank Account bearing No. 00030340025085 in HDFC Bank, Sector 125 Noida Branch of the Corporate debtor, it was found that payments to the tune of ₹ 17,89,767/- have been made by employees on 19.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 to the creditors of the Corporate Debtor (being the vendors and the Government Authorities). The details transactions are as under: Date Amount Paid Description of Payment 19.08.2020 1,26,522 Payment to PJ Networks for the period of 15-08-2020 to 16-08-2021 20.08.2020 4,08,290 Payment to PF Department : (Employer and Employee contribution) for the month of July 2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted by the Resolution Professional (Respondent herein), are being used by Corporate Debtor even as on date. 6. It is further submitted that the IRP was appointed vide order dated 18.08.2020 passed while deciding application in terms of Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016, the copy of which at page 70 to 82 of the Appeal Paper Book. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that in terms of the aforesaid order, the payments for essential services were an exception to the general moratorium as they fell under Section 14(2) of IBC, 2016. Section 14 (2) (3) of IBC, 2016 reads as under: 14(2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to- (a) such transaction as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial regulator; (b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant while referring on Judgment passed by this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 334 of 2017 Daks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2020. 11. It is further submitted that the act of transfer of the amount of ₹ 17,89,767/- was during the effect of Section 14 of IBC, it is synonymous to alienation of assets of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the Respondent filed an application bearing I.A. No. 5364/2020 ( Reversal Application ) before the ld. Adjudicating Authority and the Ld. Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties allowed the said Application on 18.03.2021. 12. It is further submitted that the instant Appeal filed by the Appellant is based on the presumption that the services being provided by it are essential services under Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. For convenience, this regulation is reproduced below: The essential goods and services referred in Section 14(2) shall mean: 1. Electricity 2. Water 3. Telecommunication Services 4. Information Technology Services To the extent, these are not a direct input to the output produced or supplied by the corporate debtor Section 14(2) However, the Appellant has conveniently ignored that any of the services me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit filed by the Respondent/ Resolution Professional shows that the Appellant herein have not taken the plea of Section 14(2) of the IBC before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority which he has taken valid service which was rendered by the Appellant fall within the definition of essential services. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order which is at page 20 to 27 of the Appeal Paper Book have not discussed the matter. 16. Further, From the perusal of the paragraph 4 of the impugned order at page 24 of the Appeal Paper Book (supra), all payments were made after the CIRP in the matter (M/s Mykind Vacations Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) Vs. M/s Dion Global Solutions Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) vide order dated 18.08.2020. Therefore, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the impugned order to refund all payments received by them on 19.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 respectively. 17. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality committed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order therefore, we do not need to interfere in the impugned order. The impugned order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
