Back
NCLAT Rejects Moving Pixels' , Upholds Return of ₹80 Lakh Received During
The has dismissed an appeal by Moving Pixels Pvt. Ltd., upholding an order directing it to return ₹80 lakh received from the corporate debtor NDS Art World Pvt. Ltd. during the . The tribunal ruled that the of CIRP creates a deemed presumption that all parties had knowledge of the , rejecting the appellant's claim of ignorance.
The Background: A Transfer During the
NDS Art World Pvt. Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on . The order was uploaded on the NCLT website on , and a was made in Mumbai dailies on . Subsequently, the Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Jitendra Kothari, discovered that approximately ₹1.01 crore had been transferred from the corporate debtor's bank account to various parties during the period, without his knowledge. Of this, ₹80 lakh was transferred to Moving Pixels Pvt. Ltd., which the RP claimed related to pre-CIRP work but was paid after the began.
Despite multiple notices from the RP, Moving Pixels refused to return the money. The RP then approached the , which ordered the return of the amount with 18% interest under . Moving Pixels challenged this order before the NCLAT.
The Ignorance Defense Fails
Moving Pixels argued that it was not aware of the CIRP initiation and that the money was held in trust by the corporate debtor, thus not constituting an asset of the company. The NCLAT firmly rejected both contentions.
The bench, comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey, held that the statutory and the uploading of the order on the NCLT website created a "" of knowledge. The judgment stated:
"As this order of admission of CIRP dated 25.07.2023 was available on the website of NCLT, as uploaded on 27.07.2023 and also made public by as prescribed under . There would be a that, there had been a concrete and a positive knowledge of the imposition of and invocation of , owing to the effect of Section 13 to be read with Section 15 of the Code."
The tribunal further noted that Moving Pixels had admitted the fact of the transfer during the period in its reply, which undermined its ignorance claim.
Trust Argument Rejected: ''
The appellant's claim that the ₹80 lakh was held in trust by the corporate debtor was dismissed as "altogether an ." The NCLAT observed that Section 14 of the IBC does not carve out any exception for money allegedly held in trust. It stated:
"This is an altogether an , because , itself doesn't carves out any exception of this nature under law as such."
The tribunal also noted that Moving Pixels failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of a trust relationship or that the ₹80 lakh was trust money.
The Decision and Its Impact
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments. It upheld the NCLT's direction for the return of ₹80 lakh with interest at 18% per annum under the . The tribunal also addressed the appellant's belated reliance on (which provided for punishment for contravening the ), noting that the provision had been omitted by the , effective from , and thus could not be invoked.
This judgment reinforces the stringent nature of the under the IBC. It clarifies that the of knowledge arising from public announcements cannot be overcome by a simple plea of ignorance, and that no exceptions exist for payments allegedly held in trust. The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against unauthorized dealings with a corporate debtor's assets during the CIRP period, ensuring that the Resolution Professional can effectively preserve the company's estate for the benefit of creditors.
