Destinos India Gurus Private Limited vs K.T.C. (India) Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Destinos India Gurus Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant

Vs.

KTC India Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Amit Agrawal, Mr. Atharva Kotwal, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Harisankar Mohapatra, Advocates

ORDER

29.11.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by

National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-VI by which I.A. No. 4305 of

2022 filed by the Appellant has been rejected. Section 7 application was filed

by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor.

3. I.A. No. 4305 of 2022 was filed on behalf of the Corporate Debtor where

following prayers have been made:

i. Issue summons for production of documents (relating to the

bank account of the Corporate Debtor) maintained by Yes Bank

and Kotak Mahindra Bank whose details are given in

paragraph 1 of the application for the documents specified in

paragraph 3 (a) and 3 (b) respectively.

ii. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit

and proper in the interest of justice.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1214 of 2022 2

4. There was another application IA No. 3037/2022 filed by the Corporate

Debtor where following prayers have made in the application:

i. Direct the Applicant to produce the information/

documents enlisted in paragraph 8 of the present

Application;

ii. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may

deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

5. In I.A. No. 4305 of 2022 the documents which were sought to be

produced were detailed in paragraph 7. In I.A. No. 3037 of 2022 documents

which were sought to be produced by the Financial Creditor were enumerated.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating

Authority rejected the application observing that the Adjudicating Authority

does not find any merits in issuance of summons for production of documents

without entering into the pleas made in the applications.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the documents

were relevant whose relevance was already indicated in paragraph 7 of the

application which were necessary to be supplied/ produced in support of

pleadings taken by the Corporate Debtor in its reply.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submission of counsel

for the appellant contends that appellant has already filed an I.A. No. 3037 of

2022 where almost similar prayers have been made, in which application

Adjudicating Authority has already heard the parties and order has been

reserved. Hence, the I.A. No. 4305 of 2022 was not required to be entertained.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1214 of 2022 3

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also referred to the certain

pleadings which were made by Mr. Randheer Brar who had filed a company

petition under Section 241 & 242 of Companies Act, 2013.

10. In petition under Section 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, he

submits that the relevant financial documents, balance sheets etc. were

already referred to in the pleadings, hence, the Adjudicating Authority was not

obliged to issue direction as prayed by the appellant.

11. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. From the I.A. No. 3037 of 2022 which is on record, it is clear that the

documents were sought from the applicant i.e. the Financial Creditor M/s KTC

India Pvt. Ltd. are almost the same documents which are now being sought

from the Banks to be produced in I.A. No. 4305 of 2022.

13. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the obvious reason is

that these documents were not provided by the Financial Creditor, hence, the

appellant has to file an application seeking direction to the banks to produce

the documents.

14. The submission of the Respondent that prayers in both the applications

are same, cannot be accepted. The prayer in the I.A. No. 3037 of 2022 were the

prayers where direction was sought to the Financial Creditor to produce the

documents and in the I.A. No. 4305 of 2022 the documents have been sought

from the banks with whom the account of the Corporate Debtor has been

maintained.

15. The relevancy of the documents has already been elaborately explained

by the appellant in the application. The mere fact that the I.A. No. 3037 of

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1214 of 2022 4

2022 has been heard and reserved has no bearing on the prayers which have

been made in I.A. No. 4305 of 2022.

16. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that on the

basis of documents filed under Section 241 & 242 being Company Petition No.

06 of 2022, direction need be issued while considering the prayers in the

I.A. Nos. 3037, 4305 of 2022 cannot be accepted. The proceedings under

Section 241 & 242 which has been initiated in respect of Financial

Creditor/Corporate Debtor are entirely different proceedings which cannot be

relied for refuting the prayer of the appellant made in I.A. No. 4305 of 2022.

17. We are thus satisfied that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in

rejecting I.A. 4305 of 2022. In result, I.A. No. 4305 of 2022 filed by the

appellant is allowed.

18. Let Yes Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank may submit the documents

before the Adjudicating Authority as detailed in the application itself.

19. The documents be produced by the Banks before the Adjudicating

Authority within period of four weeks from the date copy of this order is

produced before the bank.

20. We make it clear that our order is confined to I.A. No. 4305 of 2022 only.

21. The appeal is allowed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) sa/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1214 of 2022