Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 568
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Shri Prabhat Kumar, Justice V.G. Bisht (Retd.), JJ
Asha Apartments Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kishanlal Bagaria – Respondent
IA(I.B.C) - 4432/2024
For the Petitioner:RAINA BIRLA
For the Respondent:DHRUVE LILADHAR AND CO
The court upheld the rejection of a financial creditor's claim due to evidence suggesting fraudulent transactions, emphasizing the need for rigorous verification in insolvency proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 21 and Section 18 - Claim of financial creditor rejected due to suspicion of fraud and preferential treatment - Resolution Professional's decision based on Interim Transaction Audit Report, which indicated potential fraudulent nature of claim and lack of genuine transactions - Claim was initially accepted but later rejected following scrutiny of financial dealings - The applicant's assertions of good faith were deemed insufficient against the surrounding facts. (Paras 5, 17, 26)
(B) Judicial scrutiny in insolvency proceedings - The role of the Resolution Professional includes verifying claims and ensuring fairness in the Committee of Creditors, particularly when allegations of fraud arise - The court emphasized the need for rigorous examination of claims to prevent misuse of the insolvency process. (Paras 12, 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a financial creditor, sought to challenge the rejection of their claim by the Resolution Professional, who cited concerns of the claim being fraudulent and/or preferential based on an interim audit report. The applicant had initially submitted a loan agreement and other supporting documents, which were later scrutinized.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of the claim justified due to evidence suggesting that the loan transactions were not genuine and were structured to influence the Committee of Creditors improperly.
Issues: The primary issues included the legitimacy of the loan transactions and the appropriateness of the Resolution Professional's decision to reject the claim based on potential fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Resolution Professional must verify claims thoroughly, especially in the face of allegations of fraud, and that the applicant's claim did not meet the burden of proof required to establish its legitimacy.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER
1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking following reliefs:
a. That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to, caution set aside the impugned decision dated 06.07.2024 passed by the resolution professional of rejecting the claim of the applicant financial creditor;
b. That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to, direct the Resolution Professional to forthwith admit the claim of the applicant as the financial creditor and accordingly reconstitute the COC in terms of section 21 of the provisions of IBC, 2016;
c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present proceedings this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the CIRP of the corporate debtor;
d. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present proceedings this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional and other respondents to forthwith produce on record all the COC meetings in the present matter;
e. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present proceedings this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the RP and the COC of the corporate debtor to not to take any decisions in regards to sale of any assets and or, any major decisions in respect of the corporate Debtor namely Altius Digital Private Limited;
f. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present proceedings this Hon’ble Tribunal clarify that no proceedings or the resolution plan in respect of the company should be allowed to be accepted and or taken by the Resolution Professional.
2. The facts leading to the case in hand are as follows:
i. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) vide an Order dated 19.12.2023 passed by this Tribunal on an application filed by an Operational Creditor filed on 14.12.2022.
ii. Pursuant to the order, the IRP issued public announcement for inviting claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. Pursuant to the advertisement the Applicant/ Financial Creditor submitted its claim with the IRP. Since there was delay in filing the claim by Financial Creditor, the 1st COC meeting was conducted with Operational Creditors only on 19.01.2024. Applicant’s Submissions
3. The Applicant states that while filing the claim with the IRP, below documents were provided to the IRP for verification:
i. Copy of Loan Agreement dated 15.04.2023 executed by Asha Apartments Pvt Ltd with the Corporate Debtor who availed loan of Rs. 2 crores;
ii. Copy of the Bank Statements of the Applicant showing transfer of amount on various dates to the Corporate Debtor;
iii. Copy of the ledger statement of the Corporate Debtor maintained in the books of the Financial Creditor;
iv. Copy of the Deed of Hypothecation Agreement dated 12.10.2023 executed by Asha Apartments Pvt Ltd with the Corporate Debtor;
v. Copy of the Register of Charge created with the Registrar of Companies for the loan availed by the Corporate Debtor.
4. Thereafter, the IRP verified the claim of the Financial Creditor and after been duly satisfied by the claim submitted, the claim of the Financial Creditor was accepted by the IRP. The original Petitioner, the Operational Creditor M/s Gospell Digital Technology Co. Ltd., immediately preferred an Interlocutory Application vide IA 503/2024 seeking directions from this Bench to maintain status quo on the decisions taken in the 2nd COC meeting held on 30.01.2024 and such other directions, and this IA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 4.3.2024.
5. On 06.07.2024, the Applicant received a letter from the RP intimating rejection of claim on the pretext that he has received Interim Transaction Audit Report on the claim of the Applicant and as per the report the Applicant is considered as related party and the report which the RP is referring to, which is not attached to the letter has found that such claim of the Applicant can be fraudulent and/or preferential under IBC, 2016.
6. Applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Svenska Hand
