9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench' in IA 511/2021 in CP(IB) No. 497/7/HDB/2018, the Liquidator of 'M/s Jindal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited' (the Corporate Debtor) preferred this Appeal. The Liquidator had filed IA 511/2021 under Section 66 of the Code, seeking to declare the Sale Deed dated 11/08/2008, executed by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Respondent, with regard to the immovable property bearing Survey No. 18/1 at Goa, as a Fraudulent Transaction. The 'Adjudicating Authority' while dismissing the said Application has observed that the Applicant / Liquidator had failed in establishing that the sale Transaction, dated 11/08/2008, in favour of the Respondent, was fraudulent. 2. The Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver the Scheduled Property for a sum of Rs. 37,00,000/- and therefore, it is the intention that under these Fraudulent Activities to siphon off the assets of the Corporate Debtor for the benefit of the Respondent Company. It is further contended that except for a mere Recital in the alleged sale dated 11/08/2008, there is no actual flow of consideration to the Corporate Debtor and therefore this 'Sale' is not valid in the eyes of Law. It is also submitted that there is no proof of bank transfer, bank draft, or any other mode of payment to substantiate that the Sale Consideration was paid to the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Statements of the Respondent Company until 31/03/2008 do not reflect any such payment made to the Corporate Debtor. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property. 5. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Books of Accounts of the Respondent Company reflects the said Transaction; that the Appellant is submitting that they are placing reliance on a Forensic Audit Report, but again state that it is a Transaction Audit; even if the letter dated 18/05/1989 is a fabricated one, the proof of execution of Sale Deed is to be construed as the clinching evidence that indeed an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid for the cheque and the Sale Deed is a registered one. As regarding the filing of the balance sheet, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the balance sheet was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in June 2008 and immediately thereafter, in less than two months, the Registered Sale Deed was executed in favour of the Respondent. 7. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Scheduled Property had already been sold by the Corporate Debtor to the Respondent and that was never mortgaged by the Corporate Debtor to any bank from 1989, till date and that the Respondent is in continuation of peaceful possession of the said property. Appraisal : 8. The brief point that falls for consideration in this Appeal is whether the 'Adjudicating Authority' was justified in dismissing the Application preferred by the Liquidator under Section 66 of the Code on the ground that there was no evidence to establish that the Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s received in the account of the Corporate Debtor. 11. This Tribunal finds it a fit case to place reliance on the Judgment of the Principal Bench of NCLAT in the matter of 'Jagdish Kumar Parulkar v. Indore Steel & Alloys (P.) Ltd.' in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 802 of 2022, dated 21/03/2023 in which this 'Tribunal' had addressed in detail, regarding the role of Liquidator and observed as follows: "....Liquidators under the IBC are assigned by the Court and are undisputedly vested with sufficient authority to take into custody or control all assets, property, effects and actionable claims of the Corporate Debtor and also collect outstanding receivables including paying off bills and outstanding debts. This includes the authority to com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r material irregularities, we are satisfied with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that it is not open to the Appellant to unsettle or derail the transaction by raising the bogey of section of 43, 49 and 66 of the IBC or to disturb the possession or interfere with the leasehold right of ISAPL". 12. From the letter dated 06/09/1989, it is clear that the amount was paid by a cheque and received by the Bank. The Bank statements of the Corporate Debtor for the year 1989-90 during which time the Sale Agreement was entered into, the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- is reflected. The letter of the Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda dated 06/09/1989 addressed to the Corporate Debtor clearly states that the Bank had received an amount of Rs. 37,50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
