Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Maya Gupta Liquidator For M/S Rain ...

IN THE MATTER OF: HDFC Bank Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Mrs. Maya Gupta Liquidator for Rain Automotive Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Vasudha Chadha and Mr. Devansh Jain, Advocates for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

12.07.2024: Heard Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against on order dated 07.12.2022 passed

by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 4849 of 2020. The

Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has directed the Bank to

refund the amount of Rs. 11,91,207/- to the liquidation account of the

Corporate Debtor.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amount was routed

through account of the Corporate Debtor but was towards part payment of

the outstanding dues of the Corporate Debtor. The amount of Rs. 11,91,207/-

which was routed through account of the Corporate Debtor was not

transferred back by the Bank to the liquidation account, hence the application

I.A. 4849/2020 was filed.

4. The Bank has filed the Reply. In paragraph 6 of the Affidavit following

has been pleaded:

"6. That I say that one of the personal guarantors being Girish Bhatia had deposited an amount of Rs. 11,91,207/- on 28.08.2020 in account no. 00030450003526 towards part payment of the outstanding dues of the Corporate Debtor. The said amount of the Guarantor has thus only been routed through the account of the Corporate Debtor and the amount so debited was not the asset of the Corporate Debtor, hence, moratorium did not apply to the said debited amount. I say that accordingly, the said amount of Rs. 11,91,207/- has been debited by the Bank towards part satisfaction of its dues payable by the Corporate Debtor without violating any provision of the Code."

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that amount having been

deposited in the account of the Corporate Debtor has to be part of the

liquidation fund and could not have been retained by the Bank.

6. There being no other explanation with regard to the nature of the

amount and any other material on record, we do not find any error in the

order passed by the Adjudicating Authority directing the Bank to refund the

amount.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the deposit of the

amount was towards the individual liability of one of the Personal Guarantors.

8. Be that as it may, there being no material on the record to accept the

submission, we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly

directed the Bank to refund the amount.

The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 112 of 2023 & I.A. No. 450 of 2023 2 of 2