2019] 213
d.
The
Applicant
states
that
letters
were
also
sent
to
certain
10
customers
(details^
annexed
in
the
Petition)
amounting
to
Rs.
42. 69
Lakhs
responded
stating^
that
all
the
dues
were
paid
off
and
there
were
no
outstanding
payables^
in
their
books
of
the
Corporate
Debtor.e.
The
Applicant
also
states
that
letters
were
sent
to
two
related
parties
namely^
Jade
Fabrics,
(Proprietorship
of
Sakshi
Kathuria
and
Vincitore
Textiles^
Pvt.
Ltd.),
Respondent
No.
7
(Varun
Kathuria,
Son
of
Respondent
No. 2 ,^
is
a
Director).u
Jade
Fabrics:
Total
balance
due
was
Rs.
16. 32
Lacs.
They
replied
stating^
that
since
April,
1 ,
2017
they
had
made
several
payments
on^
behalf
of
Corporate
Debtor
and
it
resulted
into
more
Rs.
0. 16
Lakhs^
receivable
from
Corporate
Debtor
instead
of
the
outstanding
due^
of
Rs.
16. 32
Lakhs.
Further
on
the
basis
of
reply
from
Jade,
the
Applicant^
requested
for
some
more
information
and
Jade
Fabrics
is^
yet
to
provide
their
reply.u
Respondent
No.
7
:
Total
balance
due
was
INR
17. 84
Lakhs.
They
replied^
stating
that
the
balance
dues
was
not
matching
with
the
bal
ance -
as
per
their
books
and
requested
for
detailed
ledger
to
confirm
the^
balance.
Subsequently,
ledgers
were
provided
and
Vincitore
are
yet^
to
provide
their
reply.f.
Responses
for
the
confirmation
letter
sent
to
17
other
parties
are
still
awaited.^
The
above
indicates
that
the
collections
from
debtors
might
have^
been
diverted
to
other
beneficiaries
and
not
recorded
as
collections.g.
Considering
the
fact
that
the
Corporate
Debtor
was
declared
as
an
NPA
on^
28
June
2015 ,
the
Applicant
submits
that
without
obtaining
any
prior
consent^
or
a
no
objection
from
the
financial
creditors/lenders
of
the
Cor
porate -
Debtor,
such
transactions
could
not
be
entered
into
and
carried
out.^
More
so,
the
amounts
have
been
routed
without
the
knowledge
and
consent^
of
the
financial
creditors/lenders
of
the
Corporate
Debtor.
It
is
thus^
clear
that
the
above
said
transactions
were
executed
only
for
the
wrong^
and
beneficial
advantage
of
the
respective
related
parties.It
is
worth
to
note
that
there
are
no
submissions
produced
on
record
by
the^
Respondents.
The
Respondents
despite
service
of
notice
by
the
Applicant
for^
the
Miscellaneous
Application
in
hand,
chose
neither
to
file
any
reply
nor
to
appear^
before
this
Bench.
Affidavit
of
service
has
been
produced
on
record
by
the^
Applicant.
It
is
informed
by
the
Ld.
Counsel
for
the
Applicant
that
Mr.
Anil
Kathuria^
was
present
on
the
hearing
of
04. 06. 2018
but
he
chose
to
stay
silent
on^
this
application.
Hence,
it
can
be
said
that
the
respondents
have
nothing
to
say^
in
their
defence.
The
Applicant
has
made
out
its
case
that
the
respondents
were^
indulged
in
preferential,
fraudulent
and
undervalued
transactions.
The
conduct^
of
the
Respondents
since
the
initiation
of
Corporate
Insolvency
and
Resolution^
Process
was
unacceptable
and
not
satisfactory
to
this
Bench.
TheRam Ratan Kanoongo
v.
Sunil Kathuria (NCLT - Mum.)