Offences & Penalties-Punishment for falsification of books of CD [Sec .71]

Whether application under Section 43, 44 and Section 66 of IBC would survive in absence of Transaction Audit Report/ Forensic Audit Report – Mrs. Vaishali Arun Patrikar, RP, M/s Panama Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Hemant Khinvasara, Director (Suspended) of M/s Panama Systems Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT held that it is necessary to observe that at this advanced stage, the process of Liquidation has attained its finality wherein the running of business has come to an end. Further, the Applicant with the information available with her, distributed all the assets and balances to the respective stakeholders as per Section 53 of the Code and the Liquidation Account of the Corporate Debtor is already closed on 27.01.2023. Thus, while dealing with the contention of non-co-operation by the Respondent, the Applicant has taken her steps to complete the process with whatever information she had. Also, with regards to concealment of information pertaining to the missing assets (phone, laptops, desktops) the Applicant/Liquidator has not provided any concrete proof with respect to the evaluation of the amount claimed for the concealed property/missing assets or conducted any audit to conclusively show the value of missing assets as claimed. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Bench is of the considered opinion that the Applicant has failed to furnish the requisite details or provide any concrete proof with regards to the contentions raised, hence the bench is refraining from taking any action on the conduct of the Respondent in absence of any clinching evidence.

Whether application under Section 43, 44 and Section 66 of IBC would survive in absence of Transaction Audit Report/ Forensic Audit Report – Mrs. Vaishali Arun Patrikar, RP, M/s Panama Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Hemant Khinvasara, Director (Suspended) of M/s Panama Systems Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not empower the NCLT or the Adjudicating Authority to refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office even if it notices the affairs of the Company of defrauding the creditors and others – Mr. Lagadapati Ramesh Vs. Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the Tribunal/ Adjudicating Authority, on receipt of application/complaint of alleged violation of the aforesaid provisions and on such consideration and being satisfied that there are circumstances suggesting that defraud etc. has been committed, may refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by an Inspector or Inspectors as may be appointed by the Central Government. On such investigation, if the investigating authority reports that a person has committed any offence punishable under Section 213 read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 or Sections 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of the ‘I&B Code’, in such case, the Central Government is competent to refer the matter to the Special Court itself or may ask the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India or may authorise any person in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 236 of the ‘I&B Code’ to file complaint.

Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not empower the NCLT or the Adjudicating Authority to refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office even if it notices the affairs of the Company of defrauding the creditors and others – Mr. Lagadapati Ramesh Vs. Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top