2019] 207
stage
of
Liquidation.
Therefore,
the
Code
leaves
no
iota
of
doubt
with
respect
to^
the
idea
that
the
defaulters
should
not
go
scot
free,
if
the
funds
have
been
syphoned^
away.
Therefore,
it
is
important
to
decide
this
application
so
that
the^
doubtful
transactions
be
undone
and
the
money
be
brought
back
to
the
Corporate^
Debtor.
Henceforth,
the
Liquidator
shall
take
due
action
as
pre
scribed -
under
law.
It
is
submitted
by
the
Liquidator
that
on
admission
of
S.
7
Petition,
when
the^
IRP
took-over
the
charge
of
the
Company
on
29. 09. 2017 ,
it
was
found
that
the^
promoters
were
not
conducting
the
business
from
the
premises,
which
was^
the
registered
office
of
the
Corporate
Debtor.
It
was
found
that
the
Reg
istered -
office
was
sold
to
a
third
party.
It
was
ascertained
that
operations
of
the^
company
were
made
from
one
of
the
offices
situated
at
Andheri
(west),
Mumbai,^
which
belonged
to
son
of
Mr.
Sohail
Kathuria,
Respondent
No.
1
(Promoter/Director^
of
the
Company).The
IRP
attempted
to
seek
information
about
running
of
the
operations
of
the^
Company;
as
also
with
regard
to
Auditors
of
the
Company
who
had
not
completed^
statutory
audit
from
the
Financial
Year
2016 - 2017.
In
the
first
CoC
meeting^
held
on
26. 10. 2017 ,
the
IRP
raised
concerns
over
non
co-operation
by^
promoters/Directors
and
auditors;
pursuant
to
which
information
mem
orandum -
could
not
be
completed.
The
IRP
informed
that
the
operations
of
the^
company
are
being
managed
by
one
Mr.
Anil
Kathuria,
Respondent
No. 2 ,
on^
a
job
work
basis
for
a
related
party
company
i.e.
Vincetore
Textiles
Private
Limited^
(Respondent
No. 7 ).
It
was
found
that
the
cash
flow
of
this
activity
was^
not
routed
through
Corporate
Debtor
bank
accounts
until
30. 11. 2017.
Subsequently,^
it
was
made
routed
through
the
bank
account
of
the
Corporate
Debtor^
w.e.f.
14. 12. 2017.The
Applicant
submits
that
in
the
Second
CoC
meeting
held
in
01. 11. 2017 ,
the^
IRP
was
replaced
by
the
present
liquidator
as
RP.
The
RP
reviewed
the
financial^
statements.
Based
on
his
examination,
various
transactions
were
noticed^
that
have
undertaken
among
the
parties
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
and^
indirectly
benefitting
the
promoters/directors
of
the
company
raising
suspicion^
of
a
potential
fraud.It
is
further
submitted
that
the
Applicant
brought
to
the
notice
of
the
CoC
members^
about
fire
incidents
in
some
part
of
their
factory
premises
in
one
of^
the
units
situated
at
GIDC,
III
phase
Umargaon,
Gujarat
in
October,
2015 ,
as^
a
result
of
which
substantial
physical
stock
of
goods
hypothecated
with
State^
Bank
of
India
against
which
the
loans
were
availed
was
lost/damaged.Therefore,
the
primary
concern
of
the
applicant
is
that
the
registered
office
of^
the
Corporate
Debtor
has
been
changed
without
following
the
due
process
as^
prescribed
by
law.The
books
of
account
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
are
kept
at
Gujarat
and
not
at^
the
regd.
Office
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
thus
violating
the
provisions
of
section^
128 ( 1 )
of
the
Companies
Act,
2013
which
clearly
prescribes
that
theRam Ratan Kanoongo
v.
Sunil Kathuria (NCLT - Mum.)