NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI In the matter of:

Gnyandeep Kantipudi ....Appellant Vs.

Rajesh Jangra, …Respondent RP of UTM Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

For Appellant Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocate.

For Respondents

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

03.11.2025:- Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, Court-IV allowing IA No.5323 of 2020 by the Resolution Professional. By the application, Resolution Professional has sought a direction to refund an amount of Rs.27,56,514/- which was withdrawn in violation of Section 14 of the IBC. Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Resolution Professional as well as the Respondent i.e. Appellant herein allowed the application and directed for refund of the amount. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal has been filed.

3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was not aware of the order dated 17.10.2019 admitting Section 9 application, hence, amount were debited which was for running the business of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the amount was not withdrawn by the suspended director and were in the course of business, hence, that cannot be directed to be refunded.

4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

5. The Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 2(xi) has noticed the date of cash withdrawn with the date of cheques and amount. Paragraph 2(xi) is as follows:-

“xi. The Applicant herein whilst performing his duties and functions as Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and whilst conducting the affairs and business of the Corporate Debtor on examination of various transactions entered into by the Corporate Debtor and its promoter/shareholder and directors, have found that a sum of Rs. 25,13,100/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs Thirteen Thousand and One Hundred Only) have been withdrawn jointly in cash by two of the Suspended members of board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor i.e., Krupasindhu Mandal and Gnyandeep Kantipudi from Axis Bank, Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, having account no. 917020022317129, in the name of Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period. The detail of the transaction and the amount withdrawn is tabulated as below:

6. The CIRP commenced on 17.10.2019 and admittedly date of cheques are 24.10.2019 on which date amount was withdrawn in cash. The submission of the Appellant that Appellant was not aware of the CIRP process cannot be accepted. The Appellant has brought on record the copy of the order dated 17.10.2019 as Annexure A2 at page 73 which clearly indicate that Corporate Debtor was represented by two counsel whose presence are recorded in the order. Counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that although presence was recorded but the counsel was not present. We are not persuaded to accept the said submission. The Corporate Debtor has filed reply in Section 9 application and Adjudicating Authority itself in paragraph 11 of the order dated 17.10.2019 has observed that learned counsel has been heard. We, thus, are of the view that the Appellant cannot plea ignorance of the order when Corporate Debtor was represented in Section 9 proceeding and counsel was present when the order was passed. Counsel presence is noted in the order initiating the CIRP. After imposition of Moratorium which was imposed on 17.10.2019 no amount from the account of the Corporate Debtor could be debited by cheque or cash withdrawal and Adjudicating Authority has not committed error in directing refund of the said amount. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the order. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan]

Chairperson [Barun Mitra]

Member (Technical)

Anjali/md