9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Mr. Avinash Lakhanpal, Mr. Piyush Lakhanpal, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Sowmya Saikumar, Advocate for R1. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates for the Liquidator. Mr. Sahil Bhatia, Liquidator ORDER ( Through Virtual Mode ) Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that amended memo has already been filed where Respondent No.1- 'Aargus Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd.' has been deleted from the array of the parties. Let the Respondent No.1 be deleted from the array of the parties. 3. These two Appeals have been filed against the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Debtor has already returned finding that amounts written off as back dates during the Financial Year comes within the fraudulent transactions under Section 66. The amounts with regard to the Appellant were also written off by the Director. Hence, the findings of this Tribunal in judgment dated 04.05.2022 also covers the case of the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority by the order impugned has directed to make good the said amount which was shown as a debt of the Corporate Debtor. The submission that in the ledger of the Appellant, certain amount was due to the Corporate Debtor does not in any manner have any bearing on the findings of fraudulent transactions recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and confirmed by this Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the insolvency commencement date; or if he proves that, at the time of commission of those acts, he had no intent to defraud the creditors of the corporate debtor." 9. The above submission of the Counsel for the Appellant has substance. The Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 were not the officers of the Corporate Debtor so as to any punishment can be awarded on them under Section 69. We, thus, are of the view that direction in paragraph 29 insofar as Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 (Appellants before us) for prosecution under Section 69 is deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 10. In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed insofar as direction in paragraph 29 for instituting prosecution under Section 69 against the Appellants is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
