9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Sohit Chaudhary and Mr. Ravi Kishore, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal and Mr. Shashwat Srivastava, Advocates for RP JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This Appeal has been filed by the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated 05.08.2022, by which order Section 7 Application filed by the Financial Creditor - Respondent No.1 has been admitted. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed are: (i) The Financial Creditor extended a loan to the Corporate Debtor on 31.05.2018, consequent to which an amount of Rs.1,75,81,442/- was transferred to the Corporate Debtor by Bank transfer. (ii) According to the Financial Creditor, the loan was extended for a period 18 months and 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same was served on them and it was only after receipt of the email on 03.09.2022, the Appellant became aware of the Company Petition filed before the NCLT. It is submitted that on the email address of the Corporate Debtor is [email protected], no notice has been served and the notice, which was sent by Speed Post was received by another Company, i.e., M/s. Rimrock Infratech Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that loan Agreement as claimed by Financial Creditor is a forged documents and one Mr. Rajendra Kumar, who claimed to have signed the loan Agreement as Director of the Corporate Debtor, was not the Director of the Corporate Debtor and said Rajendra Kumar became the Director of the Corporate Debtor only on 29.08.2019 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 at the same address. It is submitted that the email address of the Corporate Debtor as is reflected in the M/o Corporate Affairs website is [email protected], which email address deliberately got changed by the Corporate Debtor after 30.12.2021 into [email protected]. Notices sent by the Financial Creditor on the registered email address at the relevant time has to be treated to be duly delivered and before the Adjudicating Authority several opportunities were given to the Corporate Debtor to appear and due to non-appearance, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant. Coming to the loan Agreement dated 31.05.2018, it is submitted that Mr. Rajendra Kumar, who is claimed not to be Director of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that subsequently the Corporate Debtor got its email address changed in the Company Master Data is reflected in Company Master Data obtained on 09.03.2022, cannot be a ground to be pressed by the Corporate Debtor that notices were not sent at the registered email address of the Corporate Debtor. 9. Coming to the notices which have been sent by post, the Respondent has filed an affidavit by which the Speed Post sent to the Corporate Debtor at address C-23, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-I, New Delhi by Tracking No. Z69538196, which is shown as Annexure A to the affidavit. Tracking Report has also been brought on record, which indicates that Speed Post was successfully delivered on 27.11.2021. The notices, however, were received by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentation on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. Paragraph 10 is as follows: "10. From perusal of the order sheet, it is observed that despite service, there was no representation by or on behalf of the Corporate Debtor on 03.12.2021, 22.03.2022 and 10.05.2022. Accordingly, the Respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.05.2022." 10. The Financial Creditor has also filed an affidavit of service dated 15.12.2021 before the Adjudicating Authority where details of service of notices were mentioned. The Adjudicating Authority being fully satisfied by the affidavit of service and materials brought on record has held that notices were served. 11. Now coming to the submission of the Appellant that loan Agreement dated 31.05.2018 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly indicates that Rajendra Kumar was a staff of 3 C Company and he requested that he should be removed from the post of Director from all the Companies of 3 C Group. The letter sent by Rajendra Kumar has been brought on record by the Appellant himself, which indicates that Rajendra Kumar was Director in All Companies of 3 C Group, hence, the signature of Rajendra Kumar on the loan Agreement is clearly explained as he was made Director in all Companies of 3 C by the Appellant and other Promoters. 13. Coming to the RTI reply, which has been filed by the Appellant, suffice it to say that RTI reply cannot be a basis for disregarding the loan Agreement dated 31.05.2018. Admittedly, the RTI reply was obtained at the instance of the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
