Case Reference Case Name : Mr. Naveen Kumar Dixit, Shareholder of M/s. Callina Care Overseas Private Limited Vs. M/s. Jaswant, International Private Limited Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No.164 of 2019 Company Appeal Ref. : Arising out of…
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bench-III, New Delhi, by impugned order dated 14th December, 2017, dismissed the application on the ground of inconsistency in the overall payments and the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9(3)(c) by the ‘Operational Creditor’, in the absence of a certificate from the financial institution maintaining accounts of the ‘Operational Creditor’.NCLAT upheld the same.
The Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by passing order of admission on an application of the Financial Creditor or it Assignee if the amount of debt exceeds Rupees One Lakh. Admittedly, the debt in respect of default allegedly exceeded the prescribed amount of Rupees One Lakh. Admission of a claim pursuant to collation and verification of claims by the Resolution Professional is a matter to be dealt with when the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is underway. Same is irrelevant at the stage of admission of application under Section 7 of the I&B Code. The challenge on this score is also without substance.
Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to pass any order with regard to any matter pending before the Court of criminal jurisdiction. Further, the parties having given opportunity to move against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ under sub-section (6) of Section 60 of the ‘I&B Code’, the Adjudicating Authority cannot prohibit the aggrieved person to file a claim before the Court of competent jurisdiction or an application before the appropriate Forum.
The ‘Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002’ relates to ‘proceeds of crime’ and the offence relates to ‘money-laundering’ resulting confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Thus, as the ‘Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002’ or provisions therein relates to ‘proceeds of crime’, Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’ is not applicable to such proceeding.
It is not the case of the Resolution Professional that the transfer of property or interest thereof to the Corporate Debtor for the benefit of a creditor has been made or the transfer has been effective on putting such creditor in beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets in accordance with Section 53. No such case having pleaded, we hold that the Resolution Professional failed to make out a case under Section 43 and transfer in question having made in ordinary course of business, the Corporate Debtor being a developer of real estate on the land allotted by Noida Authority for development of Commercial Complex, the application under Section 43 has been rightly rejected
Aggrieved thereof the Appellant ‘Amanpreet Singh Bawa’, Director and Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor has filed the present appeal assailing the order of admission of application under Section 9 of the I&B Code on the grounds that the impugned order was passed without service of notice upon the Corporate Debtor and that the Corporate Debtor had raised dispute with the Operational Creditor as regards the invoice on the basis of which initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution was sought.