Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs Narayan Chandra Saha
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 139 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A transaction under which a corporate debtor's receivable is settled by the transfer of shares held by the debtor's counterparty in another group company is not, without more, rendered fraudulent within the meaning of Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A liquidator's presumption of undervaluation and fraud, unsupported by any circumstantial or direct evidence, cannot found an application under Section 66 of the Code. The fact that a transaction has been identified as preferential in a Transaction Audit Report does not, by itself, establish that it is a transaction within the meaning of Section 66 of the Code.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ashok Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant Versus Narayan Chandra Saha & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Mr. Artira Basu and Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
20.02.2025 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel for the
Respondent.
2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 10.12.2024 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division
Bench, Court - II, Kolkata) in I.A. No. 790/2021 which was filed by the
Liquidator under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(for short 'The Code' or 'The IBC'). Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned
Order has rejected the Application. Aggrieved by the Order, Appellant has
come up in this Appeal.
3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority has
noticed the fact that Corporate Debtor was to receive a sum of Rs.37.50 Lakhs
from Orient Export Pvt. Ltd. and said Orient Export Pvt. Ltd. purportedly
settled the dues of the Corporate Debtor by transferring shares held by it in another group Company called Imperial Commercial Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted
that even Transaction Audit Report the said transaction was held to be a
Preferential Transaction, hence the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have
rejected the Application.
4. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the Appellant and
perused the record.
5. Adjudicating Authority has returned following finding in Paragraphs 7.2
to 7.5, which are as under:
"7.2. It has been stated that the corporate debtor was to receive a sum of Rs. 37.50 lakhs from Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. and the said Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. purportedly settled the due of the corporate debtor by transferring shares held by it in another group company called Imperial Commercial Pvt. Ltd. All these companies are not listed.
7.3. Since the amount due from Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. is for a long period, the corporate debtor instead of writing it off in the books of account as not recoverable, has chosen to settle it with the transfer of shares in its favour, in respect of shares held by Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. in Imperial Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
7.4. The liquidator has claimed the book value of shares of the said Imperial Commercial Pvt. Ltd., is around Rs. 10/- without providing any valuation report. Obviously, he has arrived the value based on net asset value method.
7.5. No adverse remarks have been placed by the statutory Auditor of the company of this transaction though he may be the Auditor of all the three companies. No remark/enquiry has been made by any other statutory authorities with regard to the transaction in question. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the shareholders of the companies have raised this issue in any meetings."
6. The fact that Corporate Debtor who was to receive the sum of Rs.37.50
Lakhs has settled with the Orient Export Pvt. Ltd. by transferring shares of
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 139 of 2025 2 of 3 another group Company cannot lead to conclusion that the transaction was
fraudulent. Adjudicating Authority has clearly held that mere possibility of
fraud without any specific finding of fraud is not legally sustainable.
Liquidator's presumption of under valuation and fraud without any
circumstantial evidence even, if not direct evidence, cannot be a basis for
allowing the Application under Section 66 of the Code.
7. The submission of the Appellant that Transaction Auditor has referred
to transaction as preferential also cannot be a ground to hold the transaction
within meaning of Section 66 of the Code.
8. We thus are of the view that Adjudicating Authority has not committed
any error in rejecting the Application filed by the Liquidator under Section 66
of the Code.
Appeal dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 139 of 2025 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free