Gvr Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Pooja Bahry (Erstwhile Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.405 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The look-back period for avoidance of preferential transactions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is one year preceding the insolvency commencement date, so a transaction made within that one-year window before the insolvency commencement date falls within the look-back period and is not excluded from the refund direction. Where an application for rectification of an earlier order seeks to exclude a transaction on the ground that it falls outside the look-back period, the transaction is covered if it was made within one year preceding the insolvency commencement date, and the earlier order therefore contains no error with regard to it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
GVR Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Pooja Bahry (Erstwhile Resolution Professional of NTL Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. ...Respondents
With
I.A. No. 3804 of 2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.405 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
GVR Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Pooja Bahry (Erstwhile Resolution Professional of NTL Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Sharad Tyagi, Ms. K. Gayatri, Advocates. For Respondents: Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Shreya Mahalwan, Advocates.
ORDER
24.08.2023: I.A. No. 3803 of 2023 and 3804 of 2023: These
Application have been filed for rectification of the judgment and order dated
24.04.2023. The Applicants were Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Company
Appeal.
Cont'd.../ -2-
2. In I.A. No. 3803 of 2023, it is submitted that there is direction for
refunding amount of Rs.1 Crore by Applicant No.1 in the order, whereas an
entry of Rs.25 lakhs has been missed. Hence, the amount which is to be
refunded is only Rs.75 lakhs. With regard to Applicant No.2, it is submitted
that there was one entry which has been added on 27.08.2018 which ought to
have been excluded in the order directing Applicant No.2 to refund Rs.90
Lakhs.
2. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional in response to the
application submits that in so far as Applicant No.1 - GVR Consulting Services
Pvt. Ltd. is concerned the entry with regard to Rs.25 Lakhs may be accepted
and liability of Applicant No.1 shall thus be Rs.75 Lakhs. However, with
regard to Applicant No.2 - GVR Electronics Pvt. Ltd. entry on 27.08.2018
cannot be excluded since the look back period is one year preceding the
insolvency commencement date and the insolvency commencement date being
27.08.2019, the transaction made on 27.08.2018 is fully covered by look back
period. There is no error in the judgment with regard to direction to Applicant
No.2.
3. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of
the submission of learned counsel for the Resolution Professional that
Resolution Profession agree for payment of Rs.75 Lakhs by Applicant No.1, we
allow application I.A. No.3803 of 2023 with regard to Applicant No. 1, clarifying
I.A. No. 3803 of 2023 and I.A. No. 3804 of 2023 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.405 of 2022 -3-
that Applicant No.1/Appellant No.1 shall refund only Rs.75 Lakhs whereas
order with regard to Appellant No.2 need no rectification.
4. In I.A. No. 3804 of 2023, prayer for extension of time for depositing
amount has been made. I.A. No. 3804 of 2023 is allowed. Time for payment
is extended further for a period of three months from today.
4. Two Demand Drafts of Rs.10 Lakhs each totalling to Rs.20 Lakhs has
been handed over to learned counsel for the Resolution Professional by learned
counsel for the Appellant in open Court.
5. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Archana/nn
I.A. No. 3803 of 2023 and I.A. No. 3804 of 2023 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.405 of 2022
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