Bcil Red Earth Developers Pvt Ltd ... vs Amit Chandrakant Shah Resolution ...

[Arising out of Order dated 09.08.2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in IA No.457/2018 and IA No.256 of 2019 in CP(IB) No.06/PB/2018]

IN THE MATTER OF: Before NCLT Before NCLAT Ministry of Corporate Affairs ... Appellant Represented by Registrar of Companies, Karnataka II Floor, 'e' Wing, Kendriya Sadan Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034

Versus

1. Shri Amit Chandrakant Applicant/RP Respondent No.1 Shah Resolution Professional of BCIL, Red Earth Developers India Private Limited BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP, The Ruby-Level 9, New Wing, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400 028

2. Shri Hariharan Respondent Respondent No.2 Chandrashekar, No.252, RMV, 2nd Stage, Corner Of 5th Course, 2nd B Main Road, Raj Mahal Vilas Second, Bangalore - 560 094 2

3. Smt. Kanchan Kaur, ... Respondent No.3 No.252, RMV, 2nd Stage, Corner Of 5th Course, 2nd B Main Road, Raj Mahal Vilas Second, Bangalore - 560 094

4. Shri Sanjay Ramanujam ... Respondent No.4 3 FC, East of NGEF Layout, Kasthuri Nagar, Bangalore - 560 016

5. Shri Promptech ... Respondent No.5 Incorporated, #436/20, 1st A Cross, 2nd Main, Mathikere, Bangalore - 560 054

6. Shri Biodiversity ... Respondent No.6 Conservation India Private Limited, No.37-1/, R.K. Chambers, Ground Floor, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Bangalore - 560 042

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mittal, Sr. Penal Counsel

For Respondents: Ms. Chaitra Bhat and Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocates (R-1) Ms. Puja Priyadarshini Thakur, Advocate (R -5)

ORDER

(Virtual Mode) 15.04.2021 Heard.

2. This Appeal has been filed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs against

part of the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.871/2020 3

Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) in IA No.457/2018 and IA No.256 of 2019

in CP(IB) No.06/PB/2018 under Section 66 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (IBC - in short).

3. It is stated that Respondent No.1 - Shri Amit Chandrakant Shah -

Resolution Professional filed Application under Section 66 of IBC, inter alia,

seeking Orders and directions that Respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the Application

before Adjudicating Authority wrote off amount of Rs.1,25,45,046/-

receivables from Respondent No.4 in that Application. The Resolution

Professional laid particulars before the Adjudicating Authority seeking

investigation into the matter. The Adjudicating Authority appears to have

heard the Resolution Professional and Respondent No.1 and 4 as arrayed

before it and after hearing the parties, gave directions in para - 12 as under:-

"12. In the result, by exercising powers conferred on this Adjudicating Authority, which being NCLT, U/s 213 of Companies Act, 2013, I.A. No.457 of 2018 and I.A. No.256 of 2019 in C.P.(IB) No.06/BB/2018 are disposed of with the following directions:

(1) Learned Resolution Professional is directed to forward all material documents, which is connected to the present case including a Review Report prepared by S.P.R. & CO.

(Chartered Accountant), copies of instant Interim Applications to the Central Government, within a period of three weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order with a copy to all concerned parties duly following principles of natural justice.

(2) The Central Government is directed to refer the matter to the SFIO for further investigation into the Affairs of the Corporate Debtor namely M/s. BCIL Red Earth Developers India Private Limited, Shri Hariharan Chandrashekhar, Ms.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.871/2020 4

Kanchan Kaur, Shri Sanjay Ramanujam and M/s. Promptech Incorporated and other related Persons and Companies including Director of Companies of Corporate Debtor & related Companies, basing on the Review Report, as expeditiously as possible.

(3) The parties are at liberty to take appropriate legal course of action basing on the ultimate findings given by the SFIO in this case. No order as to costs."

4. In Appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has grievance with

regard to Direction No.2 where Central Government is directed to refer the

matter to SFIO for further investigation. It is argued that the Adjudicating

Authority could not have directly asked the Central Government to refer the

matter to SFIO as there is a procedure required to be followed under Section

213(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 which requires that the Central

Government on an Application made by any other person or otherwise "if it is

satisfied that there are circumstances suggesting" requirements as mentioned

in the Sub-Section exist after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to

the parties, may direct investigation by Inspector or Inspectors appointed by

Central Government. It is argued that after following the necessary procedure

which includes principles of natural justice, if the Central Government finds

that the matter needs to go to SFIO, it would be at a subsequent stage.

5. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the

Respondent No.1 has instead of sending the matter and material to the

Central Government in terms of Directions 1 and 2, sent the material directly

to SFIO, which is also not correct. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.871/2020 5

No.1 submits that his instructions are that the Resolution Professional has

sent the matter directly to SFIO.

6. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 is present and she submits

that she has no objection if the present Appeal is allowed. Other Respondents

are stated to be served but none present.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the Judgement in

the matter of "Mr. Lagadapati Ramesh Vs. Mrs. Ramanathan

Bhuvaneshwari" in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.574 of 2019 dated

20th September, 2019 where this Tribunal had in similar matter, observed in

Paragraphs - 42 and 43 as under:-

"42. In view of the aforesaid position of law, we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority was not competent to straight away direct any investigation to be conducted by the 'Serious Fraud Investigation Office'. However, the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) being competent to pass order under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013, it was always open to the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal to give a notice with regard to the aforesaid charges to the Promoters and others, including the Appellants herein and after following the procedure as laid down in Section 213, if prima facie case was made out, it could refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Inspector or Inspectors and on such investigation, if any, actionable material is made out and if the Central Government feels that the matter requires investigation through the 'Serious Fraud Investigation', it can proceed in accordance with the provisions as discussed above. Impugned order shows parties have been heard on the charges claimed by the 'Resolution Professional'.

43. We, accordingly, modify the impugned order dated 16th April, 2019 and refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation through any Inspector or Inspectors."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.871/2020 6

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks similar modification in the

present directions.

9. In spite of Notice in the present Appeal, only Respondent No.1 and

Respondent No.5 have appeared. We have heard the Appellant and

Respondents Nos.1 and 5.

10 Section 213 reads as under:-

"213. Investigation into company's affairs in other cases.--The Tribunal may,--

(a) on an application made by--

(i) not less than one hundred members or members holding not less than one-tenth of the total voting power, in the case of a company having a share capital; or

(ii) not less than one-fifth of the persons on the company's register of members, in the case of a company having no share capital, and supported by such evidence as may be necessary for the purpose of showing that the applicants have good reasons for seeking an order for conducting an investigation into the affairs of the company; or

(b) on an application made to it by any other person or otherwise, if it is satisfied that there are circumstances suggesting that--

(i) the business of the company is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors, members or any other person or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, or in a manner oppressive to any of its members or that the company was formed for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose;

(ii) persons concerned in the formation of the company or the management of its affairs have in connection therewith been guilty of fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct towards the company or towards any of its members; or

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.871/2020 7

(iii) the members of the company have not been given all the information with respect to its affairs which they might reasonably expect, including information relating to the calculation of the commission payable to a managing or other director, or the manager, of the company, order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, that the affairs of the company ought to be investigated by an inspector or inspectors appointed by the Central Government and where such an order is passed, the Central Government shall appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate into the affairs of the company in respect of such matters and to report thereupon to it in such manner as the Central Government may direct:

Provided that if after investigation it is proved that--

(i) the business of the company is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors, members or any other persons or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, or that the company was formed for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose; or

(ii) any person concerned in the formation of the company or the management of its affairs have in connection therewith been guilty of fraud, then, every officer of the company who is in default and the person or persons concerned in the formation of the company or the management of its affairs shall be punishable for fraud in the manner as provided in section 447."

11. Considering the above Section as well as the Judgement relied on by

the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, it appears to us that an error has

occurred when Adjudicating Authority gave directions to send matter to SFIO

which needs to be corrected so that the proper procedure as required under

Section 213 of the Companies Act, is followed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.871/2020 8

12(A). For the above reasons, we allow the Appeal. In the Impugned Order,

we modify sub-para - (2) of para - 12 of the Impugned Order as under:-

"(2) The Central Government is directed to adopt

procedure under Section 213(b) of The Companies Act,

2013 and Central Government may get the affairs of the

Companies investigated by an Inspector or Inspectors

appointed by the Central Government and take further

necessary steps as per law, with regard to the

investigation into the affairs of the Corporate Debtor

namely, M/s. BCIL, Red Earth Developers India Private

Limited, Shri Hariharan Chandrashekhar, Ms. Kanchan

Kaur, Shri Sanjay Ramanujam and M/s. Promptech

Incorporated and other related Persons and Companies

including Director of Companies of Corporate Debtor &

related Companies, basing on the Review Report, as

expeditiously as possible.

(B) Resolution Professional will call back matter sent to SFIO.

The Appeal is disposed accordingly.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) rs/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.871/2020