PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction to direct modifications of claims provided for in the Resolution Plan once the Plan is approved – Paramvir Singh Tiwana Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The issue raised by the Appellant/Operational Creditors in these Appeals that there is discrimination between the class of Creditors and that GMADA was paid 100% of the amount in the Books of the Corporate Debtor, though they did not prefer any claim, while the Appellants were given only 25% of the claim amounts which is in violation of Section 30(2)(b) & (e) of the Code.

Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction to direct modifications of claims provided for in the Resolution Plan once the Plan is approved – Paramvir Singh Tiwana Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If there is any evidence available with the Appellant to suggest that certain sums of the Corporate Debtor have been syphoned prior to initiation of CIRP, the Appellant should bring it to the notice of the Resolution Professional with request to refer the matter to the Adjudicating Authority or NCLT – Amit Tandon Vs. Pramjit Singh Saini & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the suggestion as made by learned senior counsel may be correct but on such ground triggering of the CIRP cannot be recalled. We are of the view that if there is any evidence available with the Appellant to suggest that certain sums of the Corporate Debtor have been syphoned prior to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Appellant should bring it to the notice of the Resolution Professional with request to refer the matter to the Adjudicating Authority or NCLT, who may consider whether any investigation of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is required in terms of Section 213 r/w Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 to find out whether funds of the Corporate Debtor has been Syphoned or not and forensic audit needs to be conducted or not. If any such prima facie case is made out before the Resolution Professional/the Adjudicating Authority it may refer the matter to SFIO for its investigation to find out misappropriation, if any, made by the Directors and officers of the company (Corporate Debtor) and/or finances have been syphoned or not.

If there is any evidence available with the Appellant to suggest that certain sums of the Corporate Debtor have been syphoned prior to initiation of CIRP, the Appellant should bring it to the notice of the Resolution Professional with request to refer the matter to the Adjudicating Authority or NCLT – Amit Tandon Vs. Pramjit Singh Saini & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top