Case Law
Subject : Insolvency Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
New Delhi: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, has directed the suspended directors of Opulent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. to jointly and severally contribute over ₹10.46 crore to the company's assets. The bench, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member, Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Member, Technical), found the directors liable for carrying out fraudulent and wrongful transactions under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The tribunal held that a series of transactions, including hefty donations, interest-free loans, and falsification of accounts, were executed with the "intent to defraud creditors" and divert funds from the financially distressed company.
Opulent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on July 12, 2022. The Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Devendra Umrao, initiated a forensic audit for the period between July 2020 and July 2022. The audit uncovered several suspect transactions, prompting the RP to file an application against the suspended directors, Mr. Amit Kumar Dubey and Mr. Surendra Singh Pilkhwal, alleging fraudulent trading.
The RP identified four categories of transactions totaling ₹10,46,58,571.95, which were alleged to have been carried out to defraud the company's creditors:
The suspended directors denied the allegations, claiming their actions were legitimate. They argued that:
* The donations were made with a "bonafide intent to serve the public."
* It is not legally mandatory to charge interest on loans and advances.
* The adjustment entries were made to "avoid any liability" and prevent the extension of the limitation period.
* The expenses were legitimate, and relevant ledgers had been provided to the RP.
The NCLT meticulously analyzed each transaction and rejected the directors' defenses, finding a clear pattern of fraudulent intent.
The tribunal observed that the donations had no nexus with the ordinary course of the company's business and were made to reduce the asset pool available to creditors. It stated, "The argument of the Respondents that the donations were made 'to serve the public' cannot be accepted, as directors of an insolvent company are required to act in the interest of creditors once financial distress sets in." Similarly, the booking of ₹4.96 crore in unsubstantiated expenses was deemed a clear attempt to siphon off funds.
The bench classified the failure to charge interest as wrongful trading under Section 66(2) of the IBC. It held that advancing interest-free loans during a period of financial constraint, without any business justification, reflected "gross negligence and mala fide intent." The tribunal noted that this conduct "deprived the Corporate Debtor of legitimate income and effectively benefited third parties at its cost."
The tribunal found the directors' admission that the set-offs were done "to avoid liability and limitation" as a confession of their intent to manipulate the books. It ruled that such actions "distort the financial position of the Corporate Debtor and mislead creditors" and are squarely covered under fraudulent trading.
The NCLT concluded that the directors were knowingly parties to carrying on the business with an intent to defraud creditors. The tribunal allowed the RP's application and passed the following directions:
This judgment serves as a stern warning to the management of companies facing insolvency, reinforcing the principle that directors have a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of creditors and will be held personally liable for actions intended to deplete corporate assets.
#IBC #NCLT #FraudulentTrading
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.