JUDGEMENT

[Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)] Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-II, New Delhi) in I.A. No. 1026/2023, I.A. No. 951/2023, M.A. No. 05/2022 and I.A. No. 224/2023 in C.P (IB) No. 35(ND)/17, four separate appeals have been filed by the Appellant under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’ in short).

2. The Appellant in the present case is Shri T.S. Murali, promoter and ex- Director of M/s Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporate Debtor’). Since these appeals have arisen from more or less the same facts and circumstances, all these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 344 of 2023, the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 of the Adjudicating Authority passed in M.A. No.05/2022 has been challenged. The Adjudicating Authority while disposing of the M.A. No.05/2022 had vacated the interim stay granted by the Adjudicating Authority on the sale of Plot No. C-158, Sector 41, Noida, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject property’) and directed the liquidator to proceed with open auction with the minimum reserve/upset price of Rs.1.75 crore.

4. In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.275 of 2023, the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 of the Adjudicating Authority passed in I.A. No.951/2023 has been challenged. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing I.A. No.951/2023 held that the Appellant has no locus standi to settle the dues of the statutory creditors of the Corporate Debtor and rejected the application filed by the Appellant to place on record copy of settlement of dues with the EPFO Office.

5. In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.276 of 2023, the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 of the Adjudicating Authority passed in I.A. No. 224/2023 has been challenged wherein the interim stay granted on the e-auction of the subject property on 16.01.2023 was vacated.

6. In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.277 of 2023, the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 of the Adjudicating Authority passed in I.A. No. 1026/2023 has been challenged. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing I.A. No.1026/2023 held that the Appellant being a third party has no locus-standi to file such applications nor empowered to seek documents/information from the liquidator or to settle the dues of the creditor on behalf of the Corporate Debtor during liquidation.

7. For deciding all these Appeals, the necessary facts and sequence of events being inextricably intertwined, it would be useful to conjointly outline them as follows: -

 The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ in short) on 24.04.2017 following admission of a Section 9 application filed by M/s R.M. House Keeping Ltd./Operational Creditor.  The present Appellant is ex-Director of the Corporate Debtor who resigned from the position of Director in 2006. The Appellant thereafter continued as CEO of the Corporate Debtor till initiation of CIRP in 2017.

 Subsequent to initiation of CIRP, the claims of the Operational Creditor were rejected by the Resolution Professional on the ground that the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor did not support the claim. Further, within three months of commencement of CIRP, the Resolution Professional on raising the grounds of the unknown whereabouts of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority allowed initiation of liquidation proceedings on 11.10.2017. The Resolution Professional was appointed as the liquidator.  During the liquidation proceedings, an interim Forensic Audit Report was brought on record on 10.11.2018 which was followed by the Final Forensic Audit report on 02.01.2019.  The Interim Forensic Audit Report had noticed that the Corporate Debtor had taken a loan of Rs.36,59,250/- from ICICI vide agreement dated 30.04.2004