TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he third respondent appears to have acted as per the terms and conditions imposed in the order dated 23.12.2020. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum as provided under Section 217 and 218 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. There is no prima-facie case made out to register a criminal complaint against the third respondent. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. - Crl. O. P. No. 3564 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2022 - THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN For the Petitioner : Mr.E.M.Sachin For the Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasan (For R1) Special Public Prosecutor(C.B.I. cases), High Court of Madras. Mr.K.S.JeyaGaneshan (For R2) (Sr. pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Chief Executive Officer, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Road, K7, Mumbai - 400013 for taking action at their end. It is also submitted that C.B.I has not caused any enquiry on the enclosed complaint nor retained any copy of the same. 6. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that no relief was asked against the second respondent and he also submitted that as per Section 217 and 218 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, there is a mechanism provided for enquiring the complaint against the Insolvency Professional. 7. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent was appointed as Liquidator after following proper and appropriate procedure. The National Company Law Tribunal Divisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard to the allegations of not accepting the no due certificate, the alleged receipt of illegal gratification, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent that the Deuctche Bank and HDFC bank have not participated in the meeting conducted by the third respondent to discuss about the proposal given by the petitioner to settle the claims of the claimants and take over the company. It is also submitted that two shareholders who claim to have paid illegal gratification to the third respondent namely M/s.Nithish Co. represented by its proprietor Mr.S.Shankar and M/s.Thirupathi Stores, both of them have not raised any allegation of payment made to the third respondent as illegal gratification for the settlement of their amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
