JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant – Unigreen Global Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) against order dated 8th May, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the appellant – Corporate Debtor under Section 10 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I & B Code’) in Form 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Adjudicating Authority Rules’) has been rejected. The Adjudicating Authority has also imposed penalty of Rs. Ten Lakhs on the appellant – Corporate Debtor under Section 65 of the I & B Code.

2. The questions involved in this appeal are :

(i) Whether non-disclosure of facts beyond the statutory requirement under the I & B Code read with relevant form, prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), Rules, 2016 can be a ground to dismiss an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ?

and

(ii) Whether the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 65 of the I & B Code is legal or not?

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant – Corporate Debtor / Corporate Appellant filed an application under Section 10 in Form 6 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against it on the ground that it has failed to pay the debt due to financial creditors and other creditors. On notice, Punjab National Bank (Financial Creditor) appeared and alleging the suppression of facts on the ground that the appellant has not disclosed the full facts and has not furnished full particulars in relation to the assets mortgaged or the securities furnished to the financial creditors. It was also alleged that the legal proceeding in respect of certain properties includes Khari Baoli property has been entangled by the owners themselves. In view of such submission the application preferred by the appellant has been rejected.

4. Before discussing the stand taken by appellant (Corporate Debtor), it is desirable to notice the stand taken by Respondent – Punjab National Bank.

5. According to the respondent Punjab National Bank – (Financial Creditor) civil suits were deliberately engineered and instigated with a view to remove the mortgaged properties from the accountability of the creditors. The appellant kept pending the Civil Suits, such as “Mayank Maheshwari v. Anurag Garg” - csdj/0094/2017 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi. The said suit has been filed seeking a declaration and mandatory and permanent injunction against one of the Directors of the Company namely Mr. Anurag Garg. It was further alleged that subsequent to the above suit, in collusion with the plaintiff a S.A. has been filed before DRT III alleging that two sale deeds dated 21.10.2016 with respect to basement and mezzanine floor of the said property as well as two un-registered agreements to sell dated 1st September, 2011 had been executed by the said Director in the capacity as owner of the property in a petition under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in diary No. 146/2017/DRT-III, thereby sought for recall of order dated 21st January, 2017 wherein the learned CMM, Tis Hazari Court was pleased to pass an order dated 21st January, 2017 in favour of Punjab National Bank in ‘Punjab National Bank vs. M/s. Unigreen Global Private Limited’ appointing a Court receiver to take possession of the property. Pursuance of the said order, the Financial Creditor – Punjab National Bank has already taken over the possession of the said property. In the circumstances, it