2019] 199
being
preferential
transfer
carried
out
with
a
view
to
defraud
the
creditors.
The^
Adjudicating
Authority
(National
Company
Law
Tribunal),
New
Delhi
Bench^
rejected
all
the
three
applications
being
CA
No.
293 / 2018 ,
294 / 2018
and^
295 / 2018
by
impugned
order
dated
3 rd
October,
2018
giving
rise
to
the
present^
appeals.
Learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Appellant- Resolution
Pro
fessional -
submitted
that
the
sale
considerations
reflected
in
the
registered
agreement^
are
much
below
the
circle
rates
of
the
relevant
period
and
therefore
undervalued.^
It
was
submitted
that
the
transactions
were
fraudulent
with
the^
intent
to
defraud
the
creditors
of
the
Corporate
Debtor.
It
was
further
submitted^
that
possession
has
been
handed
over
to
the
buyers
without
a
proper^
NOC
or
a
completion
certificate
and
is
therefore
in
violation
of
terms
and^
conditions
of
the
lease
deed
executed
by
Noida
Authority.
Further
case
of^
the
Resolution
Professional
is
that
the
sale
agreements
were
executed
by
one^
of
its
Ex-Directors.
The
Respondents
disputed
such
allegation
and
opposed
the
prayer.
As
noticed,^
the
Adjudicating
Authority
also
came
to
a
conclusion
that
no
case
is
made^
out
for
alleged
preferential
transactions
under
Section
43
or
underval
ued -
transactions
under
Section
45
or
extortionate
credit
transaction
under
Section^
50
or
fraudulent
transactions
under
Section
66.At
this
stage,
it
is
relevant
to
point
out
that
the
Corporate
Debtor
was
in
the^
business
of
development
of
real
estate
and
was
allotted
land
by
Noida
Authority^
to
develop
a
Commercial
Complex.
The
same
was
sold
to
various
purchasers^
including
the
Respondents
herein.The
Resolution
Professional
filed
registered
agreements
corroborating
that
the^
transactions
were
made
for
valuable
consideration
in
the
year
2009 - 10.In
CA
No.
293 / 2018 ,
it
was
alleged
that
the
transactions
were
entered
into
by^
the
Promoters
and
Directors
of
the
Corporate
Debtor,
effecting
a
sale
by^
an
agreement
executed
on
9 th
April,
2010
in
respect
of
ground
floor
and
upper^
ground
floor
measuring
a
total
area
of
14 , 771
sq.
ft.
in
the
Commercial
Complex,^
Fortune
Smile,
developed
in
Sector
63
Noida,
on
the
allegations
of
being^
a
wrongful
transaction
within
the
meaning
of
Section
66
of
the
Code.In
another
CA.
No.
294 / 2018 ,
it
was
alleged
that
similar
transaction
was
made,^
as
made
above
related
to
an
agreement-cum-allotment
dated
8 th
May,
2018
in
respect
of
floor
space
admeasuring
7385
sq.
ft.
on
the
fifth
floor
of
the
same^
Commercial
Complex.In
CA
No.
295 / 2018 ,
allegation
related
to
agreements
to
sell
dated
13 th
February,^
2009 ,
6 th
April,
2009
and
31 st
October,
2009
in
respect
of
the
third,
fourth^
and
first
floor
comprising
of
5 , 000
sq.
ft.,
Shop
No.
1112
on
the
lower
ground^
floor
and
other
floor
space
detailed
therein,
in
the
same
Commercial
Complex,^
Fortune
Smile.Anup Kumar
v.
BDR Builder & Developers (P.) Ltd. (NCL-AT)