(2023) ibclaw.in 1055 NCLT
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad Bench
V. N. Commercial Corporation
v.
Mr. Chakravarthi Srinivisan, RP and Ors.
IA No. 1048 of 2020 in CP (IB) No. 430/09/HDB/2018
Decided on 22-Dec-23
Coram: Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member)
Add. Info:
Corporate Debtor: Shree Rudra Shakti Industries Pvt. Ltd.
For Appellant(s): Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate
For Respondent(s): Mr. V.K. Sajith, Advocate for Respondents No.3, 4 & 5 and Dr. Pundla Bhaskara Mohan, Advocate for Respondents No.7.
Brief about the decision:
This case is a classical example as to how the provisions of law can be misused by scrupulous elements. Ultimately, object of law is to unravel truth. Truth should be the Guiding Star in the entire Judicial Process. To search it out, chaff from the grain is to be removed. Dispensation of justice, based on truth, is an essential feature in the justice delivery system.
With that in mind, the value maximisation, which is one of the main objectives of the IBC, is to be achieved. The sequence of events in the present case show how meticulously one has tried to defeat the very object of the IBC.
The application under section 7 IBC was filed on 23.06.2018 and the Corporate Debtor was put in CIRP on 14.05.2019 and in between the property of the CD has been sold. For this, the foundation was laid with the execution of MoU on 08.12.2018, whereby the CD agreed to transfer its property comprising plot No.7 and part of No.14 in survey No.103 in favour of the respondent No.7 with the condition that the CD shall first clear the backlog of loan amount of “APSMCB”.
It becomes clear from the perusal of the table that the entire property at one time was owned by Hyderabad Silk Mills Pvt Ltd. Major portion of the said property was sold to the CD and a small part was purchased by respondent No.5.
The MoU (Annexure A of the application) was executed regarding the property purchased by the CD and finally this property was sold vide sale deed dated 26.04.2019 to the respondent No. 7.
Respondent No.5 sold a part of the property purchased from Hyderabad Silk Mills Pvt Ltd. to respondent No.7 vide sale deed dated 26.04.2019 (page no.92 of the application) and he executed General Power of Attorney dated 18.05.2019 for the remaining part of the property in favour of daughter of suspended director.
There is no doubt such plea can also be taken in IBC proceedings. In Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. versus Committee Of Creditors Of Educomp (2021) ibclaw.in 153 SC, it was held that the doctrine of resjudicata is applicable to the proceeding of IBC. It would be applicable to prevent the abuse of process of law and give a finality to any proceeding, or orders, and to avoid an endless litigation to frustrate the very object of enacting IBC. But the IA Nos. 742 to 745 were not decided on merits and attained finality. Moreover, now the applicant has approached this Authority in the capacity of creditor under Section 47 in contrast to the earlier IAs which were filed by respondent No.2 as Resolution Professional. Thus, this plea also does not hold water.
The principle of estoppel implies that a man shall not say one thing at one time and later say a different thing. Estoppel is based on the principle of equity. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 incorporates this principle as when one person either by his act or omission or by declaration, has made another person believe something to be true and persuaded that person to act upon it, then in no case can he or his representative deny the truth of that thing later in the suit or in the proceedings.(p25)
Judgment/Order:
Click on below button to search similar judgments:
Follow for daily updates: