2019] 203
are carried out by such director or partner, as the case may be, in relation to the
corporate debtor.”
In
the
present
case,
no
case
is
made
out
by
the
Resolution
Professional
that
any^
business
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
has
been
carried
out
with
the
intent
to
defraud^
the
creditors
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
or
for
any
fraudulent
purpose.
A^
so
called
alleged
violation
of
Section
43
or
Section
45
or
Section
46
cannot
be^
termed
to
be
made
for
fraudulent
purpose.As
we
have
noticed,
the
Adjudicating
Authority
has
found
that
transactions
were^
made
in
the
year
2009 - 10
and
the
purchasers
also
taken
possession
and
perusal^
of
the
documents
reflects
that
agreements
for
sale
are
duly
registered
documents^
with
adequate
stamp
duty
paid.For
the
reasons
aforesaid,
we
are
not
inclined
to
entertain
these
appeals.
All^
these
appeals
are
accordingly
dismissed.
No
costs.
nn[2019] 154 SCL 203/105 taxmann.com 328 (NCLT - Mum.)
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHRam Ratan Kanoongo
v.
Sunil Kathuria
M.K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
MA NO. 436 OF 2018
CP NO. 172/IBC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017
MAY 7, 2019Where liquidator noticed siphoning off of funds of corporate debtor and filed
application for a direction to respondent directors/promoters to pay sum in
respect of benefits received by them from corporate debtor, respondents
were directed to return said sums and to revert back an equal amount of
benefits received by them from corporate debtor
Section 43, read with sections 44 and 45, of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 - Corporate liquidation process - Preferential transactions and relevant time -
Pursuant to admission of application u/s 7, corporate insolvency resolution process
of corporate debtor commenced and as no resolution plan was approved by CoC,
liquidator was appointed - Liquidator noticed certain transactions which appeared
Ram Ratan Kanoongo
v.
Sunil Kathuria (NCLT - Mum.)